HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 101905COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: David Stancil, ERC Director
Date: October 12, 2005
Re: October 19th Meeting
Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting scheduled uled for.
We will again have a special guest speaker — Gerry Cohn of A merican Farmland
Trust, who will discuss the new Ag Development & Farmland
Act legislation that was deferred from the September Preservation Enabling
p meeting.
Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2590) by the Monda bef
will be unable to attend. Y ore the meeting if you
Copies: Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director
Fletcher Barber, CES County Director
Brent Bogue, District Conservationist
Phyllis Ruth, Farm Service Agency Director
Tina Moon, Preservation Planner
Noah Ranells, Agricultural Economic Development Specialist
AGENDA
October 19, 2005
Planning and Agricultural Center
Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC
7:30 p.m.
Ti
JIEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
GUEST:
STAFF:
DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD
September 21, 2005
Elizabeth Walters, Louise Tate, Gordon Warren, Mart Mandell
and Patricia Wynn Y ell, Vickie Brown, James
Tony Kleese, Bob Strayhorn, Don Johnson and Whit Morrow
Matthew Roberts, VAD candidate and Andrew Branan North
Network , Carolina Farm Transition
Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stanc"
Moon and Carol Melton, staff ►I, Preservation Planner Tina
ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER
Stancil called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. as the Vice C
ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIO hair Kleese was absent.
Stancil requested an addition to tNe gondaEe DA
vacated the position. regarding the status of the APB Chair since Ranells
ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 15, 2005
MOTION:
Stancil entertained motion for approval of the August meeting
Warren motioned approval pproval of August 17, 2005 meeting minu es.I Seconded by Wynn.
Unanimous approval.
ITEM #3a: APB CHAIRMAN VACANCY
Stancil reported that even though Vice Chair Kleese had evi r ' ously served two consecutive terms
as chair, the county commissioners' office ruled that he could
p
the remainder of the year as he did not succeed himself., It continue to serve as the chair for
for chair position at the upcoming election. Another option, t was also noted that Kleese could run
for a chair this fall to carry through until the regularly sPhedhe APB could hold a special election
Members discussed options for filling the chairman o • t . uled election time, in February.
agreed to ask Vice Chair Kleese to continue in the hairmanf rrolehe remaining term of office and
ITEM #4: SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
a. Andrew Branan - North Carolina Farm Transition Netw
Branan described the NC Farm Transition Network's mission- ork
remain in agricultural production by connecting retiring farmers with ensure that working farms
that active farms will transition from one generation to anot with aspiring farmers to ensure
transitions require advanced and sustained plannin , a roher. Effective farm business
undertake. g p cess many farm families have yet to
Branan said that it is equally important to help Young or b eginning farmers overcome the barriers
they face starting and operating a profitable farm business
equity building strategies to acquire land and equipment as well as entering farmers need creative
successful operation. Branan noted that the 2002 Census confirms management skills to run a
community is aging. Since the late 1970s the average age of ms that North Carolina's farm
steadily increased to about 56 years old. Roughly half ogN a North Carolina farmer has
about half that number are over age 65. These statistics North Carolina farmers are over 55, and
assets over the next two decades. If steps are not taken ow too an enormous transfer of farm
large amount of North Carolina's most valuable asset plan for their continued use, a
production. land, will be permanently removed from
FT September 21, 2005 Agricultural Preservation Board Meeting Summary
Page 1 of 3
01-
SL2005 -0390
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2005
SESSION LAW 2005 -390
HOUSE BILL 607
Page 1 of 10
104
AN ACT TO RENAME THE FARMLAND PRESERVATION ENABLING ACT AND
FARMLAND PRESERVATION TRUST FUND AS THE AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION ENABLING ACT AND THE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION TRUST
FUND AND TO AMEND THE ACT TO ESTABLISH A CATEGORY OF ENHANCED
VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS THAT OFFERS ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS FOR FARMLAND WHEN THE OWNER OF THE FARMLAND IS WILLING
TO ENTER INTO AN IRREVOCABLE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT FOR AT
LEAST TEN YEARS AND TO CREATE AN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
FARMLAND PRESERVATION TRUST FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Whereas, North Carolina's 53,000 farms provide food, fiber, economic activity,
wildlife habitat, natural resource protection, open spaces, cultural heritage, and fiscal savings to
the citizens of the State; and
Whereas, a productive and stable agricultural sector is important to farm families,
rural communities, local economies, and the State of North Carolina; and
Whereas, the Voluntary Agricultural Districts program is a popular, low -cost, locally
driven option that links farmers, elected officials, county staff, and the general public in
understanding and supporting the needs of agriculture; and
Whereas, landowners are looking for a wider range of options to help them develop
sustainable and profitable farms and pass them along to future generations; and
Whereas, expanding the Farmland Preservation Enabling Act and authorizing counties
and cities to establish a new category of agricultural district, an enhanced voluntary agricultural
district, will provide counties and cities with a wider range of options to protect farmland from
nonfarm development by providing programs within their jurisdictions that promote the growth,
sustainability, and profitability of farming operations; Now, therefore,
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. The title of Article 61 of Chapter 106 of the General Statutes reads as
rewritten:
"Article 61.
Agricultural Development and Preservation of Farmland."
SECTION 2. G.S. 106 -735 and G.S. 106 -736 are recodified as Part 1 of Article 61 of
Chapter 106 of the General Statutes, to be entitled "General Provisions ".
SECTION 3. G.S. 106 -737 throute h G.S. 106 -743 are recodified as Part 2 of Article
61 of Chapter 106 of the General Statutes, to entitled "Voluntary Agricultural Districts ".
SECTION 4. G.S. 106 -744 is recodified as Part 4 of Article 61 of Chapter 106 of the
General Statutes, to be entitled "Agricultural Conservation Easements ".
SECTION 5. Article 61 of Chapter 106 of the General Statutes is amended by
adding a new Part to read:
"Part 3. Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Districts.
106- 743.1. Enhanced voluntarry agricultural districts.
(a) A county or a municipality may adopt an ordinance establishiniz an enhanced
http: / /www.ncga.state.nc.us/ Sessions / 2005 /Bills/House/HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390
Page 2 of 10
y
volunta agricultural district. An ordinance ado ted ursuant to this Part shall rovi e:
For the establishment of an enhanced voluntary agricultural district that
initially consists of at least the number of contiguous acres of agricultural land,
and forestland and horticultural land that is part of a qualifying farm under
G.S. 106-737 or the number of qualifying farms deemed appropriate by the
overning board of the county or city adopting the ordinance.
For the formation -of the enhanced voluntary agricultural district upon the
execution of a conservation agreement, as de fined in G.S. 121-35, that meets
the condition set forth in G.S. 106-743.2 by the landowners of the requisite
acreage to sustain agriculture in the enhanced voluntary agricultural district.
That the form of the agreement under subdivision (2) of this subsection be
reviewed and approved by an agricultural advisory board established under
G.S. 106-739, or other governing board of the county or city that adopted the
ordinance.
(4) That each enhanced voluntary agricultural district have a representative on the
agricultural advisory board established under G.S. 106 -739.
The purpose of establishing an enhanced voluntary agricultural district is to allow a
county or a city to provide additional benefits to farmland beyond that available in a voluntary
a ricultural district established under Part 2 of this Article when the owner of the farmland
agrees to the condition imposed under G.S. 106-743.2. The county or city that adopted the
ordinance may take any action it deems appropriate to encourage the formation of these districts
and to further their purposes and objectives.
O A county ordinance adopted ursuant to this Part is effective within the
unincorporated areas of the county. A city ordinance adopted pursuant to this Part is effective
within the corporate limits of the cites A city may amend its ordinances in accordance with
G.S. 160A-383.2 with regard to agricultural districts within its planning jurisdiction.
O A county or city ordinance adopted ursuant to this Part may be adopted
simultaneously with the creation of a voluntary agricultural district pursuant to G.S. 106 -738.
106-743.2. Conservation agreements for farmland in enhanced voluntary agricultural
districts; limitation.
A conservation agreement entered into between a counly or city and a landowner pursuant to
G.S. 106-743.1(a 2) shall be irrevocable for a period of at least 10 years from the date the
agreement is executed At the end of its term, a conservation agreement shall automatically
renew for a term of three years, unless notice of termination is given in a timely manner by
either party as prescribed in the ordinance establishing the enhanced voluntary agricultural
district The benefits set forth in this Part shall be available to the farmland that is the subject of
the conservation agreement for the duration of the conservation agreement.
106 - 743.3. Enhanced voluntary agricultural districts entitled to all benefits of voluntary
agricultural districts.
The proyisi ons of G.S. 106 -739 through G.S. 106 -741 and G.S. 106 -743 apply to an
enhanced voluntary agricultural district under this Part, to an ordinance adopted under this Part,
and to any person, entity, or farmland subject to this Part in the same manner as they apply
under Part 2 of this Article.
106 - 743.4. Enhanced voluntary agricultural districts; additional benefits.
Property that is subject to a conservation agreement under G.S. 106 -743.2 that
remains in effect may receive up to twen -five ercent 25% of its gross sales from the sale of
nonfarm products and still qua ify as a bona fide farm that is exempt from zoning regulations
under G.S. 153A-340(b). For u oses of G.S. 153A-340(b), the roduction of any nonfarm
product that the Department o Agriculture and Consumer Services recognizes as a "Goodness
Grows in North Carolina" product that is produced on a farm that is subject to a conservation
a reement under G.S. 106 -743.2 is a bona fide farm u ose. A farmer seeking to benefit from
this subsection shall have the burden of establishing t at the property's sale of nonfarm products
did not exceed twen -five percent �25% of its gross sales A county may adopt an ordinance
pursuant to this section that sets forth the standards necessary for proof of compliance.
Nothing in this section shall affect the county's authority to zone swine farms pursuant to
G.S. 153A- 340(b)(3).
http: / /www.nega.state.nc.us/ Sessions/ 2005Bills /House/HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390 Page 3 of 10
A person who farms land that is subject to a conservation agreement under
G.S. 106-743.f that remains in effect is elighigh
er r
under G.S. G S. 143- 215.74(b) to receive the hier
percenta2ye of cost share funds for the benefit of that farmland under the Agriculture Cost Share
Program-established pursuant to Part 9 of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes for
funds to benefit that farmland.
O State departments, institutions, or agencies that award grants to farmers are
encouraged to give priority consideration to any person who farms land that is subject to a
conservation a¢reement under G.S. 106 -743.2 that remains in effect.
if 71 106 - 743.5. Waiver of utility assessments.
O In the ordinance establishing an enhanced voluntary agricultural district under this
Part, a county or a city may provide that all assessments for utilities provided by that county or
city are held in abeyance with or without interest, for farmland subject to a conservation
agreement under G S 106 -743 2 that remains in effect until improvements on the farmland
property are connected to the utility for which the assessment was made.
(b) The ordinance may rovide that when the period of abe yance ends the assessment is
payable in accordance with the terms set out in the assessment resolution.
O Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that any assessment is held in
abeyance under this section without interest.
(d) If an ordinance is adopted by a counjy or a city under this section then the
assessment orocedures followed under Article 9 of Cha ter 153A or Article 10 of Chapter 160A
of the General Statutes res ectivel shall conform to t e terms of this ordinance with res ect to
qualifying farms that entered into conservation agreements while such ordinance was in effect.
(e) Nothing in this section is intended to diminish the authority of counties or cities to
hold assessments in abeyance under G.S 153A -201 and G.S. 160A- 237."
SECTION 6. G.S. 153A- 340(b)(2) reads as rewritten:
"(2) Except as provided in G.S. 106 -743.4 for farms that are subject to a
conservation agreement under G.S. 106 - 743.2, bona Behr -fide farm purposes
include the production and activities relating or incidental to the production of
crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy, livestock,
poultry, and all other forms of agricultural products having a domestic or
foreign market. For purposes of this subdivision, the production of a nonfarm
product that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services recognizes
as a "Goodness Grows in North Carolina" product that is produced on a farm
subject to a conservation agreement under G.S. 106 -743.2 is a bona fide farm
Purpose."
SECTION 7. Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by
adding a new section to read:
160A- 383.2. Voluntary agricultural districts.
A ci ma amend the ordinances applicable within its planning 'jurisdiction to. rovide
flexibility to operations that are located within a city or county volunta a rcultural
district or enhanced voluntary agricultural district adopted under Article 61 of Chapter 106 of
the General Statutes Amendments to applicable ordinances may include provisions regarding
on farm sales, pick- your -own operations, road signs, agritourism, and other activities incident to
farming For purposes of this section, the term farming shall have the same meaning as set
forth in G.S. 106 - 5811"
SECTION 8. G.S. 143- 215.74(b)(9) reads as rewritten:
"(9) When the applicant is either 1 a limited - resource f r er farmer, (ii) a
beginning farmer, or (iii) a person farming land that is located in an enhanced
voluntary agricultural district and is subject to a conservation agreement under
G.S. 106 -743.2 that remains in effect, State funding shall be limited to ninety
percent (90 %) of the average cost for each practice with the assisted farmer
providing ten percent (10 %) of the cost, which may include in -kind support of
the practice, with a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per
year to each applicant. The following definitions apply in this subdivision:
a. Beginning farmer. — A farmer who has not operated a farm or who has
operated a farm for not more than 10 years and who will materially and
http: / /www.nega.state.nc.us/ Sessions /2005/Bills /House /HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390
Page 4 of 10
substantially participate in the operation of the farm.
al. Enhanced voluntary agricultural district. — A district established by a
county or a city by ordinance under Part 3 of Article 61 of Chapter 106
of the General Statutes.
b. Limited - resource farmer. — A farmer with direct and indirect annual
gross farm sales that do not exceed one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) and with an adjusted household income in each of the
previous two years that is at or below the greater of the county median
household income, as determined by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, or two times the national poverty
level based on the federal poverty guidelines established by the United
States Department of Health and Human Services and revised each
April 1.
C. Materially and substantially participate.
L In the case of an individual, for the individual, including
members of the immediate family of the individual, to provide
substantial day -to -day labor and management of the farm,
consistent with the practices in the county in which the farm is
located.
2. In the case of an entity, for all members of the entity, to
participate in the operation of the farm, with some members
providing management and some members providing labor and
management necessary for day -to -day activities such that if the
members did not provide the management and labor, the
operation of the farm would be seriously impaired."
SECTION 9. G.S. 106 -735, as recodified by Section 2 of this act, reads as rewritten:
"§ 106 -735. Short title and purpose.
(a) This eke- Article shall be known as "The Agricultural Development and Farmland
Preservation Enabling Act."
(b) The purpose of this Article is to authorize counties and cities to undertake a series of
programs to encourage the preservation of F&r qualifying farmland, as defined
hereirherein, and to foster the growth, development and sustainability of family farms."
SECTION 10. G.S. 106 -736, as recodified by Section 2 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
1106-736. A ricultural Develo meat /Farmland preservation programs authorized.
Oa A coup or a city may y ordinance establish a farmland preservation program under
this Article. The ordinance may authorize qualifying farms, as defined in G.S. 106 -737, to take
advantage of one or more of the benefits authorized by the remaining sections of this Article.
A county or a city may develo ro ams to promote the rowth develo ment and
sustainabili of farmin �a� assist farmers in develo in and im lementin laps t at achieve
these goals For purposes os Articl ezthe terms "agriculture ", " aricultura and "farming"
have the same meaning as set forth in G.S. 106 - 581.1."
SECTION 11. G.S. 106 -737, as recodified by Section 3 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
"§ 106 -737. Qualifying farmland.
In order for farmland to qualify for inclusion in a voluntary agricultural district or an
enhanced voluntary agricultural district under Part 1 or Part 2 of this Article, it must be real
property that:
(1) Is participating in the farm present- use -value taxation program established by
G.S. 105 -277.2 through 105 -277.7 or is otherwise determined by the county to
meet all the qualifications of this program set forth in G.S. 105- 277.3;
Q_mil Ti
http: / /www.ncga.state.nc.us/ Sessions/ 2005Bills /House/HTMLiH607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390
Page 5 of 10 ,
(3) Is managed in accordance with the Soil Conservation Service defined erosion
control practices that are addressed to highly erodable land; and
(4) Is the subject of a conservation agreement, as defined in G.S. 121-35, between
the county and the owner of such land that prohibits nonfarm use or
development of such land for a period of at least 10 years, except for the
creation of not more than three lots that meet applicable county zoning and
subdivision regulations."
SECTION 12. G.S. 106 -738, as recodified by Section 3 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
"§ 106 -738. Voluntary agricultural districts.
(a) An ordinance adopted under this A4e -Part shall provide:
(1) For the establishment of voluntary agricultural districts consisting initially of
at least the number of contiguous acres of agricultural
land. and forestland or horticultural land that is part of a aualifvin2 farm, or the
number of qualifying farms deemed appropriate by the head —e
eafffffiis ,governing board of the county or city adopting the ordinance;
(2) For the formation of such districts upon the execution by the owners of the
requisite acreage of an agreement to sustain agriculture in the district;
(3) That the form. of this agreement must be reviewed and approved by an
agricultural advisory board established under G.S. 106 -739 or some other
county board or official;
(4) That each such district have a representative on the agricultural advisory board
established under G.S. 106 -739.
(b) The purpose of such agricultural districts shall be to increase identity and pride in the
agricultural community and its way of life and to increase protection from nuisance suits and
other negative impacts on properly managed farms. The county or city that adopted an ordinance
under this Part may take such action as it deems appropriate to encourage the formation of such
districts and to further theirpurposes and objectives.
O
c,) A county ordinance adopted pursuant to this Part is effective within the
unincorporated areas of the county. A city ordinance adopted pursuant to this Part is effective
within the corporate limits of the city. A city may amend its ordinances in accordance with
G.S. 160A -383.2 with regard to agricultural districts within its planning jurisdiction."
SECTION 13. G.S. 106 -739, as recodified by Section 3 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
"§ 106 -739. Agricultural advisory board.
An ordinance adopted under this Part or Part 3 of this Article shall provide for the
establishment of an agricultural advisory board, organized and appointed as the county or city
that adopted the ordinance shall deem appropriate. The county or city that adopted the ordinance
may confer upon this advisory board authority to:
(1) Review and make recommendations concerning the establishment and
modification of agricultural districts;
(2) Review and make recommendations concerning any ordinance or amendment
adopted or proposed for adoption under this Part or Part 3 of this Article;
(3) Hold public hearings on public projects likely to have an impact on
agricultural operations, articularly if such projects involve condemnation of
all or part of any qualifying farm;
(4) Advise the governing board of the county eammissiattets or city that adopted
the ordinance on projects, programs, or issues affecting the agricultural
economy or way of life within the county;
(5) Perform other related tasks or duties assigned by the governing board of the
http: / /www.ncga.state.ne.us/ Sessions/ 2005Bills /House/HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390
Page 6of10
county statters. or city that adopted the ordinance."
SECTION 14. G.S. 106 =740, as recodified by Section 3 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
"§ 106 -740. Public hearings on condemnation of farmland.
An ordinance adopted under this Part or Part 3 of this Article may provide that no State or
local public agency or governmental unit may formally initiate any action to condemn any
interest in qualifying farmland within a voluntary agricultural district under this Part or an
enhanced voluntary agricultural district under Part 3 of this Article until such agency has
requested the local agricultural advisory board established under G.S. 106 -739 to hold a public
hearing on the proposed condemnation.
(1) Following -a public hearing held pursuant to this section, the board shall
prepare and submit written findings and a recommendation to the
decision- making body of the agency proposing acquisition.
(2) The board de si ated to hold the hearing shall have 30 days after receiving a
request under this section to hold the public hearing and submit its findings and
recommendations to the agency.
(3) The agency may not formally initiate a condemnation action while the
proposed condemnation is properly before the advisory board within these time
limitations."
SECTION 15. G.S. 106 -742, as recodified by Section 3 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
"§ 106 -742. Waiver of water and sewer assessments.
(a) A county or a city that has adopted an ordinance under this Part may j)rovide by
ordinance that its water and sewer assessments be held in abeyance, with or without interest, for
farms, whether inside or outside of a voluntary agricultural district, until improvements on such
property are connected to the water or sewer system for which the assessment was made.
(b) The ordinance may provide that, when the period of abeyance ends, the assessment is
payable in accordance with the terms set out in the assessment resolution.
(c) Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that any assessment is held in
abeyance without interest.
(d) If an ordinance is adopted under this section, then the assessment procedures
followed under Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes or Article 10 of Chapter 160A
of the General Statutes whichever a lies shall conform to the terms of this ordinance with
respect to qualifying farms that entered into conservation agreements while such ordinance was
in effect.
(e) Nothing in this section is intended to diminish the authority of counties or cities to
hold assessments in abeyance under G.S. 46;A 29 :G.S. 153A -201 or G.S. 160A- 237."
SECTION 16. G.S. 106 -743, as recodified by Section 3 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
"§ 106 -743. Local ordinances.
A county or a ci adopting an ordinance under this Part or Part 3 of this Article may consult
with the North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture or his staff before adoption, and shall
record the ordinance with the Commissioner's office after adoption. Thereafter, the county or
ci shall submit to the Commissioner at least once a year, a written report including the status,
progress and activities of 'its farmland preservation program under this Part or Part 3
of this Article."
SECTION 17. G.S. 106 -744, as recodified by Section 4 of this act, reads as
rewritten:
"§ 106 -744. Purchase of agricultural conservation easetne easements; establishment of
North Carolina Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust
Fund.
(a) A county may, with the voluntary consent of landowners, acquire by purchase
agricultural conservation easements over qualifying farmland as defined by G.S. 196 -43;
G.S. G.S. 106 -737.
(b) For purposes of this section, "agricultural conservation easement" means a negative
easement in gross restricting residential, commercial, and industrial development of land for the
http: / /www.nega.state.nc.us/ Sessions/ 2005Bills /House/HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390 Page 7 of 10
purpose of maintaining its agricultural production capability. Such easement:
(1) May permit the creation of not more than three lots that meet applicable
county zoning and subdivision regulations; att4
1 a
May ermit agricultural uses as necessary to promote agricultural development
associated with the family farm; and
(2) Shall be perpetual in duration, provided that, at least 20 years after the
purchase of an easement, a county may agree to reconvey the easement to the
owner of the land for consideration, if the landowner can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the county that commercial agriculture is no longer practicable
on the land in question.
(c) There is established a "North Carolina Agricultural Development and Farmland
Preservation Trust Fund to be administered by the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Trust
Fund shall consist of all monies received for the purpose of purchasing agricultural conservation
easements or funding programs that promote the development and sustainability of farming and
assist in the transition of existing farms to new farm families, or monies transferred from
counties or private sources. The Trust Fund shall be invested as provided in G.S. 147 -69.2 and
G.S. 147 -69.3. The Commissioner shall use Trust Fund monies f6r the for any of the following:
The purchase of agricultural conservation easements, including transaction
q+q a costs.
(2) Public and private enterprise programs that will promote profitable and
sustainable family farms throu h assistance to farmers in developing and
implementing plans for the production of food, fiber, and va ue -added
products, agritourism activities, marketing and sales of agricultural products
produced on the farm, and other agriculturally related business activities.
To fund conservation agreements to bring into or maintain farmland in active
nroduction of food, fiber, and other agricultural products.
f administering the program under this Article, including the
staff and staff su port.
cl The Commissioner shall distribute Trust Fund monies for such purchases, including
transaction costs, as follows:
(1) To a private nonprofit conservation organization that matches thirty percent
(30 %) of the Trust Fund monies it receives with funds from sources other than
the Trust Fund.
(2) To counties according to the match requirements under subsection (-c - c2 of
this section.
{e-l-} c2 A county that is an enterprise tier four county or an enterprise tier five county, as
these tiers are defined in G.S. 105- 129.3(a), and that has prepared a countywide farmland
protection plan shall match fifteen percent (15 %) of the Trust Fund monies it receives with
county funds. A county that has not prepared a countywide farmland protection plan shall match
thirty percent (30 %) of the Trust Fund monies it receives with county funds. A county that is an
enterprise tier one county, an enterprise tier two county, or an enterprise tier three county, as
these counties are defined in G.S. 105- 129.3(a), and that has prepared a countywide farmland
protection plan shall not be required to match any of the Trust Fund monies it receives with
county funds.
(e2-) c3 The Commissioner of Agriculture shall adopt rules governing the use, distribution,
investment, and management of Trust Fund monies.
(d) This section shall apply to agricultural conservation easements falling within its
terms. This section shall not be construed to make unenforceable any restriction, easement,
covenant, or condition that does not comply with the requirements of this section.
This section shall not be construed to invalidate any farmland preservation program.
This section shall not be construed to diminish the powers of any public entity, agency, or
instrumentality to acquire by purchase, gift, devise, inheritance, eminent domain, or otherwise
and to use property of any kind for public purposes.
This section shall not be construed to authorize any public entity, agency, or instrumentality
to ac uire by eminent domain an agricultural conservation easement.
(e� As used in subsection (e1}. c2 of this section, a countywide farmland protection plan
http: / /www.ncga.state.nc.us/ Sessions /2005Bills /House /HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390 Page 8 of 10
means a lan that satisfies all of the following requirements:
(1) The countywide farmland protection plan shall contain a list and description of
existing agricultural activity in the county.
(2) The countywide farmland protection plan shall contain a list of existing
challenges to continued family farming in the county.
(3) The countywide farmland protection plan shall contain a list of opportunities
for maintaining or enhancing small, family -owned farms and the local
agricultural economy.
(4) The countywide farmland protection plan shall describe how the county plans
to maintain a viable agricultural community and shall address farmland
preservation tools, such as agricultural economic development, including farm
diversification and marketing assistance; other kinds of agricultural technical
assistance, such as farm infrastructure financing, farmland purchasing, linking
with younger farmers, and estate planning; the desirability and feasibility of
donating agricultural conservation easements, and entering into voluntary
agricultural districts.
(5) The countywide farmland protection plan shall contain a schedule for
implementing the plan and an identification of possible funding sources for the
long-term support of the plan.
(f) A countywide farmland protection plan that meets the requirements of subsection (e)
of this section may be formulated with the assistance of an agricultural advisory board
designated pursuant to G.S. 106 -739.
There is established the Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust
FunJ'Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall be administratively located within
the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and shall advise the Commissioner on the
prioritization and allocation of funds, the development of criteria for awarding funds, program
planning, and other areas where monies from the Trust Fund can be used to promote the rg owth
and development of family farms in North Carolina. The Advisory Committee shall be
composed of 19 members as follows:
(1) The Commissioner of Agriculture or the Commissioner's designee, who shall
serve as the Chair of the Advisory Committee.
2 The Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary's designee.
3 The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources or the Secretary's
designee.
(4) Three practicing_ farmers, one appointed by the Governor, one appointed by the
President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and one appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
(5) The Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at North Carolina
State University or the Dean's designee•
The Dean of the School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at North
Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University or the Dean's designee.
(7) The Executive Director of the North Carolina Rural Economic Development
Center, Inc., or the Executive Director's designee.
The Executive . Director of the Conservation Trust for North Carolina or the
Executive Director's designee.
(9� The Executive Director of the North Carolina Farm Transition Network or the
Executive Director's designee-
10 The President of the North Carolina Association of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts or the President's desi
11 The Director of the Southeast Regional Office of the American Farmland Trust
or the Director's designee.
12 The Executive Director of the North Carolina Agribusiness Council or the
Executive Director's designee.
13 The President of the North Carolina State Grange or the President's designee.
14 The President of the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., or the
President's designee.
http: / /www.nega.state.nc.us/ Sessions/ 2005Bills /House/HTML/H607v6.html 9/21 /2005
SL2005 -0390 Page 9 of 10
A.
15 The President of the North Carolina Black Farmers and Agriculturalists
Association or the President's designee•
16 The President of the North Carolina Forestry Association or the President's
designee.
17 The Executive Director of the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners or the Executive Director's designee.
The Advisory Committee shall meet at least Quarterly. The Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services shall provide the Advisory Committee with administrative and
secretarial staff. Members of the Advisory Committee shall be entitled to per diem pursuant to
G.S. 138 -5 or G.S. 138 -6, as appropriate The Advisory Committee shall make
recommendations to the Commissioner on the distribution of monies from the Trust Fund at
least annually. The Commissioner shall take the recommendations of the Advisory Committee
into consideration in making decisions on the distribution of monies from the Trust Fund.
01 The Advisory Committee shall report no later than May 1 of each year to the Joint
Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations and the House of Representatives and
Senate A ro riations Subcommittees on Natural and Economic Resources re arding the
activities of the Advisory Committee, the agriculture easements purchased, and agricultural
projects funded during the previous ear."
SECTION 18. G.S. 106 -581.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 106 - 581.1. Agriculture defined.
For purposes of this Article, the terms agriculture ",-
"agricultural ", and "farming" &hftg-refer to 4te-all of the following:
The cultivation of soil for production and harvesting of crops, including but
not limited to fruits, vegetables, sod, flowers and ornamental 1p ants.
2 The planting and production of trees and timber.
3 Dairying_ and the raising, management, care, and training_of livestock,
including o h orses, bees, poultry, deer, elk, and other animals for individual and
public use, consumption, and marketing. ,
4 Aquaculture as defined in G.S. 106 -758.
5 The operation, management, conservation, improvement, and maintenance of a
farm and the structures and buildings on the farm, including building and
structure repair, replacement, expansion, and construction incident to the
farming operation.
" "agricultural ", and "farming" also
When performed on the farm, "agriculture", g_
include the marketing and selling of agricultural products, agritourism, the
storage and use of materials for agricultural u oses packing, treating,
rocessin sorting, storage, and other activities performed toad value to
crops, livestock, and agricultural items produced on the farm, and similar
activities incident to the operation of a farm."
SECTION 19. The first report required pursuant to G.S. 106- 744(i), as enacted by
Section 19 of this act, is due on or before 1 May 2006.
http: / /www.ncga. state.nc.us/ Sessions / 2005 /Bills/House/HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
SL2005 -0390 Page 10 of 10
ea
t SECTION 20. This act is effective when it becomes law.
2005.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 23rd day of August,
s/ Beverly E. Perdue
President of the Senate
s/ James B. Black
Speaker of the House of Representatives
s/ Michael F. Easley
Governor
O 'I-qO „ m t11ie 1 2th Aaxr 7nn5
http: / /www.nega.state.nc.us/ Sessions/ 2005Bills /House/HTML/H607v6.html 9/21/2005
y 4i
Draft Agenda
Joint Meeting
Agricultural Preservation Board
Soil and Water Conservation District Commission
Farm Services Council
November 1, 2005 — 6:00 PM
Planning & Agricultural Center, Hillsborough, NC 27278
I. Welcome & Introductions
II. Board Missions & Ongoing Projects
a. Agricultural Preservation Board
b. Soil Water Conservation District
c. Farm Service Agency
III. Shared Vision
IV. Potential Partnerships
V. Update on Agricultural Center Workgroup
VI. Plans for Future Joint Meetings
ORANGE. COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND R ~SOURCE CONSERVATION D5PARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: Dave Stancil, ERC Director
Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager
Date: September 14, 2005
Ci ihinrfi- i anrl. Leaacv Action Plan for FY 2006 -08
Every two years our department works on developing a new "Action Plan" for the Lands
Legacy Program. The plan will identify natural and cultural areas that the County will work
on protecting through Lands Legacy during upcoming two fiscal years (FY 2006 -08).
As in previous years, the ERCD staff will work with advisory boards to identify projects to
include in the plan: Agricultural Preservation Board (prime farmland); Commission for the
Environment (natural areas /wildlife habitat, riparian buffers); Historic Preservation
Commission (cultural & archaeological); Recreation & Parks Advisory Council (parklands).
Input from the APB can be 'in the form of specific projects, general guidance or both.
Recommendations from the APB should be finalized by your November meeting so that a
draft Action Plan can be submitted to the BOCC for consideration at its Dec /Jan retreat.
Initial Thoughts for FY 2006 -08
The following are key points for the APB to consider in making recommendations:
➢ Another 500 acres of farmland (on three farms) will be protected by conservation
easements by the end of 2005 or by early 2006, and four other farms are scheduled
to have lands put under easement in 2006.
➢ The County's funds that were used over the past three years to purchase
conservation easements (and to receive federal matching funds) has been depleted;
the remaining funds have been earmarked for seven farmland easements in process
➢ Parks and Open Space bond funds (approved 2001) are still available to acquire land
with natural (and cultural) resource significance through Lands Legacy Program;
those funds may not be used to acquire land or conservation easements where there
would be no public access allowed
During the first five years of the Lands Legacy Program, Orange County acquired 758 acres
for new county parkland and nature preserves, and protected another 820 acres of privately
r„,r,orl fnrm1nnr1 Anri nati iral lands with conservation easements.
Environment and Resource Conservation
PO Box 8181 / 306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2590
�r
APB Recommendations for the 2004 -06 Action Plan
In 2003, the APB recommended that the County do the following:
➢ Continue purchasing farmland conservation easements from willing sellers,
focusing on active farms in the Cane Creek, University Lake, Upper Eno, Little
River and Back Creek watersheds
➢ Work on building a critical mass of protected farmland communities
➢ Continue to pursue grant funds (e.g., USDA Farm & Ranch Land Protection
Program) in cooperation with partner agencies such as OWASA and the
NRCS /Soil and Water Conservation District.
➢ Continue outreach to the farm community
Environment and Resource Conservation
PO Box 8181 / 306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2590
For the period July 1, 2004 -June 30, 2006
Introduction
The Lands Legacy Program was adopted by Orange County in April 2000. Administered
by the Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD), the program's mission
is to help protect the county's most important natural and cultural resource lands before
they are damaged or lost to incompatible development activities. The program is guided by
an Action Plan developed by ERCD and adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The
biannual Action Plan guides Lands Legacy acquisitions and protection for the specified years.
The process of developing the Action Plan begins with staff identifying potential projects
and asking for initial guidance. Staff then meets with advisory boards for their input on
development of priorities for the upcoming years. Using the advisory board
recommendations, a draft Plan is prepared for distribution to the Board of Commissioners at
their annual goal - setting retreat. The Action Plan is finalized with the CIP process.
The following is an Action Plan for the fiscal years 2004 -2006. The plan incorporates
comments from four advisory boards, coupled with the continuation and completion of goals
and objectives from the previous action plan. The Action Plan contains goals, a summary of
advisory board comments, specific action objectives, and a priority list of land acquisition
and protection projects for the coming two years. Also attached is brief Performance
Report for the first four years of the Lands Legacy Program (2000 - 2004).
(Note: Plans to continue to pursue grant funding for County projects are implicit.)
1. Upper Eno and Upper New Hope Riparian Buffers: Continue to protect riparian
buffers in the Upper Eno River watershed critical area (including additions to Seven
Mile Creek Preserve) and the Upper New Hope Creek watershed.
2. Faucette Mill and Halls Mill Historic Areas: Continue efforts to acquire
conservation easements that would protect properties with historic structures and
archaeological sites in the Faucette's Mill area. Identify locations for proposed future
efforts to protect historic properties and archaeological sites in the Halls Mill area.
3. Agricultural Conservation Easements: Work with willing sellers (and partner
entities) to acquire agricultural conservation easements in priority watersheds, in
conjunction with the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program.
4. New Park Sites: Identify locations for potential land acquisition to establish
community parks in the White Cross area (Bingham Township) and in north- central
Orange County -- the last remaining parks identified in the 1988 Master Recreation and
Parks Plan. Reassess specific park needs for the north- central region given the current
park development plans for the county's Northern Center Park (Cedar Grove
Township) and the new Little River Regional Park (Little River Township).
" Lands Legacy Action Plan 2004 -06
adopted 9/21/04
5. Natural Areas and Prime Forests: Protect the highest priority natural areas and
prime forests identified in the Orange County Inventory of Significant Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitat (2004 update) and the Landscape with Wildlife: Part 11 (1999).
6. Complete Stewardship Plans: Develop stewardship plans for both County -owned
nature preserves (McGowan Creek Preserve and Seven Mile Creek Preserve).
7. Heritage /Scenic Corridor Pilot Easement: Complete the "pilot project" scenic
easement along a high - priority viewshed of the historic St. Mary's Road corridor.
8. Joint Town /County Open Space: Continue collaborating with the towns and other
entities in acquiring land for establishing or expanding rustic trails or greenways
identified in town plans that tie together important County -wide open spaces.
9. Continue working with Duke University and the University of North Carolina on
the protection of natural areas on university -owned property through state registration,
state nature preserve dedication, conservation easements or other means.
A. Commission for the Environment (CfE)
Continue efforts to protect Upper Eno riparian buffers (including Seven Mile
Creek),_ Mason Farm Oak- Hickory Forest (M10), and University natural areas.
Expand efforts to protect Jordan Lake Macrosite, as defined by NC Natural
Heritage Program. Work with partners to protect Sevenmile Creek Sugar
Maple Bottoms (E06), Occoneechee Mountain (E07), Bolin Creek corridor
(B01), and proposed Cane Creek to Crabtree Creek wildlife corridor. Explore
potential pilot project to reconstruct a piedmont prairie site. Protect all high
priority Natural Area sites and consider all opportunities to protect riparian
habitats and associated natural areas throughout the County.
B. Agricultural Preservation Board (APB)
Continue purchasing farmland conservation easements from willing sellers.
Focus on active farms in the Cane Creek, University Lake, Upper Eno, Little
River and Back Creek watersheds — working to build a critical mass of farm
easements in those watersheds. Augment County funds by pursuing grants
(e.g., FRPP) in cooperation with partner agencies (e.g., OWASA, NRCS /Soil
and Water Conservation District). Continue outreach to farm community.
C. Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC)
Acquire land for establishing community parks at the remaining areas
recommended in 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan: White Cross and
North-Central Orange.
D. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
Work with the owners of the Holden -Hill House, Halls Mill House (particularly
dam and mill site), and the Faucette Mill area to protect the historic features
2
Lands Legacy Action Plan 2004 -06 adopted 9121104
on those properties. Pursue the protection of other important historic and
archaeological sites (e.g., Murphey School) whenever possible. Protect
"heritage corridors" and other areas of cultural /scenic value (e.g., St. Mary's
Road). Acquire sites with historic structures as long as Orange County can
allocate adequate funds to ensure proper stewardship of those structures.
Involve the HPC in matters concerning historic structures on County lands.
The following are more specific acquisition objectives developed from existing plans,
discussions with land conservation partners, in some cases expanding upon or
refining advisory board recommendations. These are not listed in priority order.
A. Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
• Work with partners to protect (through acquisition or other means) the higher
priority Natural Areas as identified in the Inventory of Significant Natural Areas
(2004 update), including Mason Farm Oak- Hickory Forest (M10)
• Protect the highest priority prime forest areas identified in A Landscape With
Wildlife: Part (Wiley, Ludington and Hall, 1999)
• Work with the Eno River Association and others to protect (through acquisition
and other means) critical land for the Seven Mile Creek Preserve and a wildlife
corridor that connects to the Cane Creek reservoir
Work with the Eno River Association and others to protect (through acquisition
and other means) other priority riparian lands and upland habitats in the Upper
Eno River watershed critical area and lands adjacent to Eno River State Park
• Work with Triangle Land Conservancy and others to protect (through acquisition
and other means) priority riparian lands and central county prime forest lands
located in the Upper New Hope Creek watershed
• Work with the Town of Carrboro, University of NC and the Friends of Bolin Creek
to identify priority lands for potential protection (through acquisition and other
means) the Bolin Creek corridor (B01).
B. Farmland Preservation
• Work with the USDA /Natural Resource Conservation Service and Orange Soil and
Water District, and OWASA to identify and prioritize willing seller(s) and donor(s)
of conservation easements in Cane Creek, Upper Eno River, University Lake,
Little River and Back Creek watersheds. (Where possible, build a critical mass of
contiguous farm easements in these watersheds.)
• Preserve farmland that also contains riparian buffers to help meet multiple
conservation objectives
• Work with USDA /Natural Resource Conservation Service to secure grant funds
from the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program for acquiring
conservation easements
3
Lands Legacy Action Plan 2004 -06 adopted 9121104
C. Parklands and Open Space
• Using existing plans and the comprehensive resource database, identify potential
locations for future acquisition of park site in north- central Orange County for a
community park (re- assess the needs for this proposed site, previously titled
"Cedar Grove - Little River Parkj
• Acquire key " "missing link" properties for proposed Northern Chapel Hill Township
Rustic Woodland Trail (linking Chapel Hill /Carrboro /County parks with the New
Hope Creek corridor, including Duke Forest, and eventually Eno River State Park)
• In all acquisitions, be cognizant of the potential for meeting other objectives of
protecting riparian buffers, natural areas and historic /archaeological sites
D. Cultural and Archaeological Sites
• Work with landowners in the Faucette Mill area to protect the combination of
historic and natural features in that historic area
• Identify locations for proposed future efforts to protect historic properties and
archaeological sites in the Halls Mill area.
• Conduct archaeological surveys of county properties acquired for future parks
and nature preserves (e.g., Blackwood Farm, McGowan Creek Preserve)
• Work with the HPC and others to accomplish preservation of cultural and
archaeological sites associated with land acquisition projects
E. Watershed Riparian Buffers
• Work with the Eno River Association and others to protect riparian corridors in
the Upper Eno River protected watershed; pursue grant funds from NC Clean
Water Management Trust Fund and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program for
protecting specific high - priority buffer lands in this watershed
• Work with the Eno River Association and Triangle Land Conservancy to identify
and protect priority areas in the Little River watershed
• Work with New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee and the Triangle Land
Conservancy to identify and protect priority areas in New Hope Creek corridor
• Work with the Morgan Creek Valley Alliance and others to identify priority areas
for protection in the Morgan Creek corridor
• Work with the Friends of Bolin Creek, the Town of Carrboro, the University of
North Carolina, and others to identify priority areas for protection in the Bolin
Creek corridor
• Attempt to accomplish preservation of buffers in other water supply watersheds
through parkland acquisitions and agricultural conservation easement projects
21
rn
v
a
Q
ti
b
H
N
0
a�
J
•3
a
O
V
Q
1
O
O
N
4W
E
O
L
O
BE
LM
U
0O
L
a
ca LO
4+
E
m
d7
O
L
a
,O
i
m
H
Cd
cd
�'
ti ON
O��a)ti
C5 0
j
U
...4
"d
U
v�
N
3 .;5 3 U '
0 ,- .
0 cd Cd
cd rc bA
� �
cd
0 �
Cd
�'"
M
Cd cd
0 0 0 � O
I o
,� 'b Cd
P-4
CIO
`O
3 'ti >,
o Z 42
Cd
�°' 0 42'
C O
cd
�
� h
C:)
N °
Q
UO -+ U
N O N
Q)
I
'd
' O �
0 O :r
-+ a) 4 )
� � '
0
O
B O A r--4
4
r
cd
O
° U
°
bo p bb
0� 0 po a.) >,
N � � 10
�. o
o
O� U O N
U P-4 0 U �
a�
rd O U U
►--+ � N Q cd '0
O U �'
U �,
U O cd �
o a U O
[� �
E--( A, U N
_
r.
`n u
U
�. 0
bA O
,`� O '
b
I I cd
U
ia� i in
cd 4�
pj o
.�
�,
�aU'b
o"
o .,
w cd
b
a s
Cd w
o rd °
d o C)
L�l
U �
)
U ) ¢N
N b C
o 0
°°y tea'
0
b o
p
rCd
o _
oPQ� W
64 Q, � (�+ 0
69 N � �u 00
p � � I O E-+
p a) ��' cd .y
p i�. �
cd
o � C/] ,� U
O 0 0 cd N °�
O �, � cd �i 'j
O � �. . U) cd
O � 0 1
,'
45 U
cd b
�'
rd
U
) y a. r
I cd
O
O cd O
r o O
r'
o
Ua
.
°
O a W w
�wCd�Qr
Cd
4-4 C) ox'
° .4
w Z
� Cd °
.�
0
b
b°
�?"
3 0�
a�
° ° ,� a G4
o
r b4 3 U
�'
�, o
cd a� U
Cd
cd o °�,
0 ,� 0 �
Z U
o °
a,
Cd -d ��
o o
�Q
W' C �d , d
5
� 0 o
0 a0i
y
� � �
0 � a� .� u • �
0 0 0
3 a� o U
� �, +, �'
b
b4 ---f U. -4
,D b �, u.
O
0 U O
., U cd
' _, v;
a) o
`�
cd "b W
� bU
�. rd a,
O
P., 0 o
.� '0 o
O � rd
cd o cd
', o f
3 P"
A-5
C.) Z a
°
_ � c" . � 3
bA bA �
cad
�
"d r. 0 o �
U , M
�cc
�
cd cad
° o
O O
cd
3
O 6 O W a
�
�° o o �
P 0
,
'1 a � r3, 3 w
- a . r-4 P-4
Pa U �d
a a
i cd U cd
,�
"
o
W
_
-� Cd
•d
° �°
`4- 0 P.
: o v
.. .
rci En
o o
F, Cd U
0
U �, a, PQ W
al 0
• 0
4
a, U 0
P.
0
(u O �:
O s-q ^,
a� c
0
Cd Q"
°"
Ord
a U a
4-4
:may o
a) .--� ",
° �, � ,b
W U U U U
�
cd U Q,
U Z
b �.
'
0 0
a QV U
bO
-
° '-' 1
U
0
' v)
° +'
o
in
- ►moO w
° Cd
� ° -4 � cd
U P.,U 0P -4
°� �.
Ham
�
�.° �
R: n Z
Ln
ag
O
ti
obi
Q
0
0
N
a
0
Q
v
4
4
o
N
w cd
w
v� bA C,3 cd N
PO
-11--5
O
p P. C-)
:--�
o o
"� +
3
v
A- a� " Q"
0
U) �
�°
3 N �
� ' w �j,'�
co
OO
a�
o� Q
%"6
C)
N
w 5) � o
�
g,
cd ON
Pr �I
b4� O
.2
co O
U N
�
O cd
'� N
b
ro
n
O b
CJ
co �
4.1
ms4, �
U E d
� O
d�• � O .�
� ,� bz in
,�
3
O
p ++
O
U
C) —0 O
v
c d Z N
N U Pa)
U
cd N
�
N
'd
U
Q)
U
w
O 4+ cd
p
'd
V
0 0 P. d
O
0 4� O }' a j
v
�
O �O cd cd
C
O D O �' a
° U�
- 'CA
I
+C, �
C o
y 0 oUw,
ass Qo
0
3�W
o
o 4-J
°
t44 4-4
-
o r , -.5
t Q o
oO �
o o bo
oO
o a� N
o
�o
C) rd �
o,
o
- ° °
o En
-
,° �
, Cd
N ---4 4
r o
w
b
N
b
O
o
ro
O �'
..
(L)
o ,-d
+
ago
�
En
En �- in
6b
. 0 O+- O
ri)
o
r-4
o
w
O
C, ° P., Cj
ro
O
P,
0 W
a) �
1-4 o
,
�
cd rn O
4-b cd • ,� rd
O
O�PO
"I° � "
P�
, c�
�' a o,
� o
�'
cd W
Cd °b a�
u 3
P.
N° d
N cd
cri U)
CL) C,3
CIS
O 3 4�
cd cd
Cd
v U v
v cd
c)
v O � C
P. U)
W C v
, v
O
°
P� cd U
4-a O Gil U
• , , -N b
P� cd cd 4 i
4-+ Q
o
4-4
o
0 a� �
° U °
C,3 O
'b
;..g O
En
W [40)
'+ —C,3
cd
P
cd
°
CIS
U o °
o
cj
o
o
rA
o
�U
o �
34 •�
b
o
`,3 o
� o o ;
r4 °
.2 `d
Z � P, y
En t
cot vi ate+
cd r%1
W
�,
� ' o
.
w cd
� pq
cri
W
o
3
�? �
a� P�
U
Pi
CIS
P.,
U o
'� O a�
% °� a
� °
CS
4k PL-4 U
v� d' � co)
� �
w ,� P P.4
P64 a) Cn cd
R
v
3
tn
.o
E
iR
cu
0
Pe:
T�
`+ 1
Q
O
1
le
O
N
L
V
o �O
L
o �-
N
C =
Q
'lid p
J A
� H
J H
1 -I
-
J
JQ
JQ
Q
U
O
Cd
Cod
V/
i--1 V 1
�•�
• ~
p
' +�
t-jj
r
?-1
C)
b U o
°
�° '
a
'b o
U ul o
U M 'b
°
�..
41 ' mood"
r, bD U +-�
.,--4 p
U a�
c+ ,
rd
+� ' r,
cd
Cd
U
�cn
Crj
O
cd U
`r'
U Q
°
U
°o
"
b
�3w
N 4 i cn
•�
° W R�
t Q °' '-'
i U Cd
°
0
� �' U o
O
U
(,
—
r U
O
—
U
U U U 3-
o
yam, b
V U
O
C�
6 -,�
U¢ Cd
u
U U
o O� U
�
'''
a,
O� ��°
�w�
O
1 -I
ll Lands Legacy Action Plan 2004 -06
In addition to specific acquisition
objectives, the following actions and
strategies will be needed to facilitate
long -term land conservation:
1. Work with advisory boards to
develop a Natural and Cultural
Systems Element to the
Orange County Comprehensive
Plan, incorporating the results of
the 2004 update to the county
Inventory of Significant Natural
Areas and Wildlife Habitat.
2. Convene Orange County Land
Conservation Alliance twice
annually to discuss progress and
potential opportunities for
collaboration with conservation
partners.
3. Explore potential pilot project to
restore /reconstruct a piedmont
prairie site on suitable lands in
partnership with others (e.g., NC
Botanical Garden, universities,
NRCS.).
4. Conduct outreach with civic
organizations, neighborhood
groups, and others to discuss
the Lands Legacy Program and
conservation options.
5. Compile land acquisition inquiries
and potential opportunities from,
landowners and other partners,
and present to the Board's for
direction on whether to pursue
acquisition.
Conclusion
The first four years of the Lands
Legacy Program saw tremendous
strides in the protection of priority
resource lands, with 1,055 acres
permanently protected (as of June
30, 2004) and several more projects
in the works.
The FY 2004 -06 Action Plan will build
on projects from previous years, and
includes additional projects in each
of the Lands Legacy priority areas
(natural areas, parkland, cultural/
historic resources, prime farmland
and riparian buffers in potential
wildlife corridors and public water
supply watersheds.
This Action Plan will further the use
of 2001 parks and open space bonds
funds to protect high priority
resource lands in Orange County.
ERCD will also continue to pursue
grant funds from a variety of state
and federal sources.
He"
1�
j
h
0
U
MI
Cd
O
U
UA
F4
En
C�
LO
O
O
N
O
O
O
u
N
Q
4—
i
.O
4—
Q
N
4-a
0
a)
Cd
P4
c
N
U
a;
v) O
U Cd
U
c�
b
p
Z O
U+
cd
o
U
4-j 03
o U
U)
;>, M
Q
o
p' M
cc
A-+
U O
o>
U' o
0 4o
b�'
c bi)
od
p
-J
o U
En
0
rd o
os U
(
o cd
x ,
4
°
O ct
4-,
O N
U U
� 3
rA
r-j
rd
' o Q,
°
a�
s�, w
Q o
o ,b
o x
�
c� o
a�
U
b
En
N
O �'
�
a;
'�
o
0 4
�
o �
U x
� -d �
r-4
o U
0 1
� � U
U
,d °
4-j 1-4 Cd o
o
b+- °
ti C
° �
�cd °�
d U
t
° > p , d
° U (n
cd Qo o
cd
cd
+p
Q., °
cd
U
0 o
0
o
d 0
,
O
O
C
�
t
o +�
�
(
'.4 c�
Cd
�
o U
� °
CVIJI
o
�
o o
�
1-4
;�
o bn
° cd
0
0 0
51-1
(.C)
Cd
fs-
i
u. Ea
U � ,
a >
Piz
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
4-0
cd
ti
►�
U
O
U
U
A
�
vM
�
rM-+
'b
v]
N
bcn
Cld
c,;j
�
r
w °o
U '�
c O
�o+
N
4-a
0
a)
Cd
P4
r
j
ti
9.-3
41 i
W
r--e
N
�d
� M
O N
U o N
0 �
0 ' ,..�
ch
a�
co a
M o
kn o W
0
N o O
kn
0
� b
M
b � o
vo^„
a.>
P••. a, o
O ° oo
.b N
�b
a O�
0
►� Z
�E
N
4-+
C
P-4
b
3
1-4
U
0 U?
p4
W
oOZ
ben3�O����',�•�
,�
�.b
a�
°
o
�,
o a�
x
��
d O
3'�
3
P-�
0
01-,
0 0
0
a>
o
W o
o
0 0
0°
(L)
4) a)
U
ua
W
o
o°
o o
.� .�
o °
P°
o
.
rA
Cn
O O
U
O
N
N
C
U
v
0
0
O
�
c� 'd
Cd
+�
�
cd +j
c�
�;
c�
c ,-d
0
0 �
- +�
p
bOA
O
N
0
'b
+-, �
cd
cd
4-� cd
O 0
O � d
�-, ° : d'-'
O � 0
+� cn
0
•4
t .�,
*d
�
am, 0
yam-+
,
o
C
° U
rd
3' -�
3'
'+--'
0
En
En
N
,-�
cd O
.O
O U cd
cd
cd O
O
O cd
�b
-4.1b
UW oU
a�Ux���U
°U.01
O o
O o°
���'
-�w
� ��
Cd
° a�
A -'►-a
0
0
0
°o
0
0
00
o
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
kn
O
N
N
s-+
p
y
oa�
0
4�
N
N
Cld
+-j
4-j
Q�
Cd
a)
Cid
.o
cri
W
W
°
W
�+
UO
o
C�
�'
o
Cd
P-4
0
w
o
cn
>
Z
U
v�
►�
W
r--e
N
�d
� M
O N
U o N
0 �
0 ' ,..�
ch
a�
co a
M o
kn o W
0
N o O
kn
0
� b
M
b � o
vo^„
a.>
P••. a, o
O ° oo
.b N
�b
a O�
0
►� Z
�E
N
4-+
C
P-4
Participating Farm
Orange County
Voluntary Agricultural District
AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION
i • � t
Dedicated to preserving farmland
Committed to sustaining sgticultur'e
as a viable way of life for
Orange County farmers.
Connecting the Community to Farmland Heritage
c�;- 1
�y
�� �.
32
O
w
� I
.O v
� O
C� V
�A
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
O
'C4
cd
U
�n
O
—
O
o
•
5
U
i N
, d
U
r,
(401
Cd
to
_
O
c�
U 'si
U
N
•O
Uct
In
bA
In
cd U
- �,
O
� U
�,
O
U
fs-, P-,
O
cv
>'
p4
p., p..,
,�
0 P-,
Inform-ational
Material
Agricultural Preservation
Board
October 19, 2005
Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland
report Since 19910 — Deborah Bowers, Editor
Six counties change rankings in survey
A New Jersey county and a California county
overtook a Maryland county, and a Pennsylvania
county overtook both a Maryland and a California
county in an annual survey of county- operated
farmland programs conducted this month by Farm-
land Preservation Report. The shuffle in rankings
was the most active since the survey began in 1995.
The annual survey by FPR, in the past con-
ducted in July, is now conducted in September.
Publisher Deborah Bowers told county administra-
tors of the schedule change in June, and notified
participants that beginning in 2005 only acres that
had reached settlement or closing would be ac-
cepted. Prior to this year, acres were accepted as
long as settlements had been scheduled.
Also new this year, FPR conducted a survey of
localities that have high numbers of farmland acres
preserved, but without locally administered pro-
grams comparable to those in the "Top 12" survey.
In that separate survey table, appearing on page 7,
Fauquier County, Va., tops the list with 55,252
acres, nearly all preserved through donation to the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
Berks County, Pa. made the most notable
change in the Top 12 ranking, leaping from 7th to
4th place over last year's listing, pushing Carroll
County, Md. into 5th place. Berks, however, had
overtaken 6th -place Baltimore shortly after last
year's survey. Baltimore, however, held on to 6th
place this year due to Sonoma County's drop from
5th to 7th, not measuring up to Baltimore's steady
gains. The Sonoma County Agricultural and Open
Space District, in fact, had no agricultural lands to
add to its tally since FPR's last survey in July 2004.
Marin County, Ca. moved from 9th to 8th
place, and Burlington County, NJ moved from 10th
to 9th place, both overtaking Harford County, Md.,
which was knocked out of 8th place, down to 10th
in the ranking.
Top 12 county programs table, page 3
Together, counties added 3 0,23 1 acres over last
year's total preserved acres. Reported local funding
dropped from $98 million to $69 million, but this is
due to multi -year funding commitments reported for
some counties last year rather than current -year
funding. Sums shown in this year's table are for the
current year.
Harford County, Md., with a popular installment
purchase program, is beginning to stall in its
progress, nonetheless, due to low per -acre offers,
according to administrator Bill Amoss. Offering no
more than $5000 per acre is not bringing farmers to
the table, and although the state farmland program is
offering up to double that amount to Harford farm-
ers, there are few takers, due to the benefits the
more than 40 applicants see with the installment
payout option - the promise of capital gains tax
deferral and tax -free interest payments compete
Continued on page 2
VOLUME 15, NUMBER 10 SEPT. 2005
Top 12 local programs table - p. 3
Other top counties table - p. 7
Florida use value taxation under fire - p. 4
CT towns to fund farm preservation- p. 4
Jobs digest /Conferences - p. 8
Page 2
acre offers for PDR, and will
farmland preservation report
September 2005
TDR market robust
in Montgomery
Continued from page 1
readily with the state's lump sum payout, AmoSS
said. The coming year may only see a gain of about
800 acres. Applicants-seem to be waiting for the
county council to increase the per -acre rate. An
upcoming comprehensive rezoning also has some
landowners on edge as important farms have applied
for increased residential density.
"The bottom line right now is being able to pay a
competitive price. We had as many as a dozen farms
turn down offers," Amoss said.
Top - ranking Montgomery County continues to
see an active transfer of development rights (TDR)
market, the driving force for its preserved acreage.
"The market is staying robust," said John
Zawitoski, reporting $35,000 to $40,000 per right
transferred. While the receiving area of Clarksburg
continues to drive the market, plans to open addi-
tional receiving capacity in Olney and Damascus
could increase protection for the county's 93,000 -
acre Agricultural Reserve, where residual density
following downzoning in 1980 remains at 1:25.
Montgomery has adjusted its points -based apprais-
17)
als for greater per -
consider working in concert with TDR to affect the
residual density. Zawitoski said a "super TDR in
which the ratio for transfers could be increased from
1:1 to 10:1 in an attempt to approach lot prices and
buy down density in the Ag Preserve.
Next month, Montgomery will celebrate the
25th anniversary of creating the Ag Reserve.
Lancaster County is top - ranking for the pur-
chase of development rights and has a new commit-
ment from county commissioners for a series of
bond issues to continue over the next six to eigh t
years: That will significantly boost applications, s aid
Rich Doenges, executive director of the Lancaster
Agricultural Preserve Board. Of the $80 million
commissioners said will eventually be borrowed for
farmland and open space, $72 million will be for the
APB, including $ 8 million that will be used for
matching funds to go to the Lancaster Farmland
Trust, Doenges said. It all means $8 million annually
for the APB in local funds. The county d received
$900,000 in ei eV d
$3.6 million from the state this year federal dollars, for an estimated $ 12 million annually.
"It's been a good year," Doenges said. "We
began the year with a backlog of 252 farms. Then
once I learned we'd be getting money, in anticipa-
tion of that, I've requested appraisals on 188
farms." Since then, there are 40 new applicants and
a waiting list of over 200.
Lancaster, like Montgomery, has made some
a higher
farmland preservation report adjustments to its point system, giving
t t reserved farms.
is published monthly exceptfor August &December by
Bowers Publishing, Inc.
900 La Grange Road
Street, Maryland 21154
Telephone: 410 692 -2708 Email: bowerspub @hotmail.com
www. farmlandpreservationreport.com
Deborah Bowers
Editor &Publisher
Tom Daniels
Senior Contributing Editor
Robert J. Heuer
Contributing Editor
CELEBRATING OUR 15T1 YEAR!
Subscription rate of $205 includes index & hotline services. ISSN:
1050 -6373. Copyright 02005 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. All right
priority to applicants ad�acen o p
"That's paying off, but at the expense of reducing
points on farms more likely to develop," Doenges
said. The board is also assigning extra points to
applicants who choose to offer a bargain sale. This
year about 30 families chose some level of bargain
sale. Eight of 250 accepted 50 percent of easemen t
value. Also this year, the board awarded the
Lancaster Farmland Trust with a $500,000 chal-
lenge grant.
Chester County holds on to third place with the
work of the Brandywine Conservancy logging the
majority of agricultural easements. Chester County
s commissioners allocated $2.7 million to match
reserved. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of thi°
material requires permission from the publisher. WMEMPM
Continued on page 6
>i
Z
X1,1 0
September 2005 farmland preservation report Page 3
Nation's Top 12 Locally Operated Farmland Preservation Programs
Rank County
Total
Preserved
Acres
Ag
Program
Acres'
Other
Program
Ag Acresz
Number
of
farms
Local
Funding
Available
(millions)3
Market
Value of
Ag Products
(millions)
1
Montgomery (MD)
64,998
58,977
61021
n/a
6
41.6
2
Lancaster (PA)
621061
49,715
12,346
561
6
798.3
3
Chester (PA)
49,805
19,044
30,761
n/a
6.7
376.7
4
Berks (PA)
45524
42,597
2,927
378
8.1
286.9
5
Carroll (MD)
44,873
39,391
51422
387
9
68.9
6
Baltimore (MD)
43,935
23,257
21,678
n/a
4.2
62.1
7
Sonoma (CA)
41,212
39,207
2,005
n/a
10
571.7
8
Marin (CA)
40,125
38,000
21125
57
0
43.0
9
Burlington (NJ)
391757
21,707
18,050
n/a
9
83.2
10
Harford (MD)
38,655
34,325
4,330
339
5
26.0
11
York (PA)
341161
28,706
5,455
160
0.98
147.6
12
Frederick (MD)
31,893
24,812
7,081
284
4.3
96.7
TOTALS:
536,999
419,738
118,201
69.2
2.6 billion
Notes ' Ag program acres may include acres preserved through state or county programs. All reported acres are finalized. In
Montgomery County, most acres are protected through transfer of development rights (TDR). Lancaster is number one in purchase of
development rights (PDR) . Z Other programs include the Maryland Rural Legacy Program, local land trusts that protect farmlands, TDR
programs not operated by the county, and other local programs that permanently set aside agricultural land and allow agricultural use.
3 Figure shows local funds available for the current year..It excludes state and federal dollars which may add substantially to this sum.
Sources: Interviews with county personnel and private organizations, Sept. 2005. Market value figures: USDA Census of Agriculture.
Other sources of preserved acres, by county
Montgomery Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET
Lancaster
Lancaster Farmland Trust
Chester
Brandywine Conservancy, Natural Lands Trust
Berks
Berks County Conservancy
Carroll
Rural Legacy, MET, Carroll County Land Trust
Baltimore
Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET, land trusts
Sonoma
Sonoma County Land Trust
Marin
Marin Open Space District
Burlington
Pinelands Development Credit Bank
Harford
Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET
York
Farm and Natural Lands Trust of York County
Frederick
Md. Rural Legacy Prg, MET
About the FPR Annual Survey of Local Programs
Sources of funding & assistance, by county
TDR; local general fund; state programs
State program; local bond issue, municipal TDR
Bonds; state program; municipal match
Local bond issue
State programs; bond issues
State programs; bond issues
Dedicated 1/4 percent sales tax
State grants; private grants; capital campaign
Dedicated property tax; TDR; municipal match
State programs; local real estate transfer tax
State program; local general fund
State programs; local general fund; ISTEA
How localities qualify for the survey This survey, formerly conducted each July but beginning this year con-
ducted in September, measures farmland preservation by 1) number of acres permanently preserved; 2) political
leadership and administrative skill; and, 3) significant funding. While number of acres determine ranking, inclusion in
the survey requires meeting the other criteria. Agricultural conservation easements have been used in at least 200
localities in the U.S. Many more localities qualify for assistance to purchase easements under state and federal pro-
grams. How counties are ranked The ranking considers a locality's total farmland preservation effort, including
activities of other entities and programs, such as land trusts, open space districts that use easements, state -level
farmland programs, and easements assisted with a combination of funding sources. Acres reported are expected to
include natural areas that are part of a property under agricultural use, but properties preserved primarily for environ-
mental protection are asked to be excluded. Agricultural use must be protected in the easement.
Use of this table: Subscribers are permitted to use this table in a press release. Otherwise, reproduction of this table for use
outside of a subscriber's agency is prohibited. It should not be reproduced or transferred to another location or agency. Questions
about the survey should be directed to the publisher at 410 692 -2708 or email: bowerspub @hotmail.com.
Page 4
news briefs
farmland preservation report
Nine West Virginia counties funding
farmland programs with transfer tax
CANAAN VALLEY WV - Nine counties in the eastern-
most portion of West Virginia now have local real
estate transfer taxes to- fund farmland preservation
programs, and seven more counties have formed
agricultural preservation advisory boards with intent
to fund programs, according to Lavonne Paden, a
land protection consultant. Another nine counties have
had a public meeting to discuss forming local boards.
Berkeley County, the easternmost panhandle
county jutting into Maryland, is now in its third year of
negotiating easements with an annual transfer tax
revenue of $2.2 million, plus federal dollars, Paden
said. About 1,500 acres there have been preserved.
Elsewhere in the state, another 1,500 acres are at or
near completion, she said.
West Virginia has yet to assist counties and is not
keeping track of local progress, according to Buddy
Davidson of the state department of agriculture. A
state board, however, has been formed.
According to Paden, county governments will not
be waiting for state help.
"The counties have a head start on the state.
They're fairly independent and can move ahead...
there are quite a few applicants, so farmers are very
interested."
Miami Herald investigation: ag use tax
break too friendly to developers
MIAMI -DADE, FL - A lengthy investigation by the
Miami Herald shows Florida's agricultural use value
taxation law gives huge tax breaks for bogus farms,
allowing developers and speculators to save millions
in property taxes annually. Many tax breaks of up to
99 percent are for barren lots, the Herald reported.
All 50 states give property tax breaks to farmland
owners, with or without penalties for eventually
developing that land, but Florida's law is among the
nation's most troubled, according to conclusions in the
three -part series that ran in August.
Using parcel data for Miami -Dade and Broward
Counties, as well as tax break applications, aerial
photographs, inspection notes, tax records and taped
hearings, the investigative team found that much of
September 2005
the $60 million that those two counties forfeit annu-
ally goes to landowners whose lands are planned for
development and which are not in actual farm use.
The root of the problem? Lack of scrutiny by
local government officials, a vaguely worded statute
and developer - friendly court rulings, the investigation
found. For example, the Miami -Dade appraiser's
office has "granted farm subsidies despite incomplete
or late applications, zoning that prohibits agriculture,
and cursory inspections," giving away much of the
$60 million it paid in tax breaks to scam operations,
Statewide, Florida shelled out an estimated $745
million under agricultural -use taxation last year.
According to Herald reporter Sam Nitze, political
will to reform the law has been lacking.
"The elected or former elected officials we talked
to about past efforts to reform the law said they went
nowhere at all. Nobody sounds very optimistic about
change, but we'll see," Nitze told FPR. The series
can be seen at www.herald.com.
New law forces CT towns to levy fee,
fund farmland preservation
HARTFORD. CT - Gov. Jodi Rell signed Bill 410 in
July, requiring the state's 169 towns to increase
document recording fees by $30 and to use the
revenue to fund farmland preservation, historic
preservation, open space acquisition and affordable
housing. The revenue is to be split evenly between
the four programs, but towns get to take 34 off the
top. The increase takes effect Oct. 1.
The governor also put $8 million in the 2005 -06
budget and $10 million in the 2006 -7 budget for
farmland preservation, according to program director
Jay Dippel. The funds more than quadruple the
program's former annual funding.
"Each day, we lose more acres of farm land and
open space to developers," Gov. Rell said. "Each day
we see historic homes and buildings razed to make
way for cheaper new construction. Well, this is a
new day in Connecticut, as we rededicate ourselves
to those who made Connecticut the great state that it
is, and to those who will inherit it from us."
"This is great news for farmers," Jay Dippel told
FPR. "They now see the program has a realistic
funding commitment."
Also enacted under Bill 410 is a fee simple
purchase option for farms under imminent threat, and
a local program authorization (see FPR, June 2005).
rl i September 2005 farmland preservation report Page 5
Lancaster County approves $25 million
bond for preservation, first in six years
LANCASTER, PA - For the first time since 1999, the
Lancaster County Commissioners have approved a bond
issue aimed at farmland preservation, with a commit-
ment to continue borrowing yearly for the next four
years to the sum of $100 million. If carried out, 80
percent — $72 million— will go to farmland preservation,
including $ 8 million slated for matching grants, according
to program director Rich Doenges.
The remaining 20 percent of funds will go to urban
neighborhood improvements.
New Jersey township considers
downzoning, clustered density transfers
SPRINGFIELD TWP, NJ - Springfield Township in
Burlington County, NJ, may increase its minimum lot size
from three acres to 10 acres and offer an option to
transfer density to noncontiguous parcels. In the July -
Aug. issue of FPR, the township was reported to be in
Bucks County, Pa., and was in error.
Elected officials in Springfield have in the past been
committed to devising a transfer of development rights
(TDR) plan when TDR was authorized by the state
legislature in 1989. A plan was drawn up by the county
land use office in 1990 but was never adopted.
But traditional TDR requires sewer and water and
would bring rapid development, according to land use
attorney and township commissioner David Frank. The
proposal is being termed a "non- contiguous density
transfer" that will occur in areas with septics. Frank said
the plan is more like a cluster provision.
The plan would divide the township into five sec-
tions, and designate every parcel in the sections as either
a receiving or sending area. Sending area parcels would
be allocated development credits based on the prior
zoning of one unit per three acres (1:3), but all credits
would be allocated based on a completed site plan, Frank
said. Receiving area parcels could build one unit per
acre with one credit purchased per unit constructed.
If density transfer is not used, development could
occur on either sending or receiving parcels at the 1:10
density. Transfers would be restricted to occur between
parcels located in the same section.
"We are trying to prevent intrusion of development
into agricultural areas, but we don't want to deprive
farmers of equity," Frank said.
The plan could be voted on in October.
state briefs
In Minnesota ... Dakota
County has entered its
third easement applica-
tion cycle, and expects
applicants to offer more
than 1,000 acres to
preserve, roughly equal
to the last cycle. To
date, six easements have
been completed from
the first round, involving
about 700 acres, and
seven easements are
pending, with another
1,300 acres. Dakota has
about $3 million in funds
annually from a $10
million bond referendum
and from FRPP, according
to manager Brian
Watson.
In New jersey ...
Acting Gov. Richard
Codey announced Aug.
8 a $142 million allocation
for farmland preservation
and $223 million for open
space acquisition... not
all local governments are
always in favor of
preservation, however.
Pemberton Up. voted
Sept. 1 not to support
Burlington County's plan
to purchase easements
on three farms within its
boundaries. The pur-
chases may go forward
without township council
support, according to
freeholder spokeswoman
Loretta O'Donnell.
Township council
members said the county
and the state were
taking too much land out
of development poten-
tial, and believe develop-
ment will help bring
down property taxes
that have grown by 20
percent in three years.
In Maryland ... Howard
County appointed a
committee to seek an
alternative solution to
downzoning to protect
its remaining agriculture.
A proposal by Howard
County planners to
reduce allowable density
from 1:4.25 to 1:10 (see
FPR, July) has been
dropped due to land-
owner opposition. ....The
Maryland Agricultural
Commission and the
Dept. of Agriculture held
seven meetings during
the summer to listen to
farmers concerns about
the future. At a well -
attended session in
Harford County, partici-
pants ranked farmland
protection as their chief
concern and had many
suggestions for improving
profitability and markets.
In California... Merced
County is considering a
development mitigation
law that would require
either that developers
preserve, at a minimum,
one acre for every acre
developed, or, pay a fee
in lieu of land purchase. A
committee established by
the Merced County Board
of Supervisors is recom-
mending that the county
and its cities adopt such
legislation. Similar mitiga-
tion laws exist in several
California localities.
In New York ... Suffolk
County Executive Steve
Levy said farmland
preservation funds could
be jeopardized by
precedent- setting
legislation passed by the
county council that would
divvy out a greater share
of the county's sales tax
revenue to police. Levy
may veto the bill, he said.
In Pennsylvania ... Last
month the state board
approved 37 farms
totaling 4,357 acres,
bringing the state's total
to 2,687 farms and
308,461 acres. Funding is
ample: $36 million has
been allocated from
renewed bond funds and
Continued on page 6
�4
Page 6
farmland preservation report
September 2005
Continued from page 5
ANNUAL SURVEY
other revenue sources including
the state's cigarette tax.... An
n ki n s get sh uff I ed i n
Ra g
updated comprehensive plan for
Montgomery County shows a
late st local survey
goal of 17,000 acres and 225
program
farms preserved by 2025 in this
rapidly urbanizing county outside
Continued f rom page 2
Philadelphia. The county now
funds and $4 million for its Challenge Grant Program to municipalities in its
has 6,643 acres and 101 farms.
In Mighigan ... Acme Town-
northern end. In that program, created two years ago, 1,044 acres have
ship voters defeated -- by seven
been preserved including a donation of 353 acres. The county's mainstay
votes -- a town council ap-
has 18,000 acres with 876 acres pending, according to director
proved temporary moratorium
on big box retail development.
program
Kevin Baer. The program is paying a high of $12,000 per acre and a low
The moratorium was to allow
of $2,904 per acre.
time to bring zoning into
John Goodall of the Brandywine Conservancy said development
agreement with historic and
landscape preservation plans.
pressure continues to be intense in Chester. "But we're finding that the
In Massachusetts ... With no
more intense the development the greater the interest in preservation."
county governments, the
Another active Pennsylvania land trust in the survey that focuses on
Agricultural Restriction Program
is lucky to have towns begin-
agricultural land is the Farm and Natural Lands Trust ofYork County,
ning to contribute funds to
which has protected 57 farms on its own. The group holds public nforma-
easement purchases, according
tional meetings several times each year and finds landowners are confused
to Ron Hall, program director.
With a $10,000 per acre cap,
town contributions can help
about state programs.
"People confuse Clean and Green [the state's tax break for farmland]
make deals work, Hall said.
with the preservation program. They think that if they are in Clean and
In Minnesota ... Dakota
County just closed its third
Green their farm is protected," said operations manager Rochelle Black.
application cycle and estimates
The Marin Agricultural Land Trust, Marin County's sole source of
over 1,000 acres will be consid-
fund protection, closed on three properties earlier this year totaling
ered. To date, 700 acres from
six projects are complete and
2,800 acres, according to director Bob Berner. Costing $8 million, the
seven easements are pending,
projects "basically tapped us out in terms of our funding reservoir," Berner
involving 1,300 acres, according
said. "Now we are in a capital campaign and looking ahead." MALT's
to Brian Watson, program
manager. The county has $3
40,125 acres puts the Marin effort about one -third of the way toward an
million annually from a bond
acceptable preservation goal, Berner believes. "We don't have any sense
referendum and federal grants.
that the best is taken care of," he said.
In Washington ... Skagit
In Baltimore County, five land trusts and as many state and local
County's Farmland Legacy
Program has preserved just
programs are at work to keep pace with the nation's top programs despite
under 4,900 acres.... a state-
the county's proximity to a major city. Two ofthe five land trusts work
wide petition to place a prop-
exclusive) with agricultural land, garner local, state, and federal grants, and
Y
erty rights measure on the Nov.
2006 ballot is gaining strength.
depend on county program administrator Wally Lippincott to finalize deals.
The effort by property rights
On the heels of 44,000 acres, Baltimore County manages to stay in the
advocates grew out of the
Measure 37 passage in Oregon.
middle of the top 12 by juggling multiple programs and adjusting mechanics
"We're hearing it's pretty much
to beat imminent threat to good farms and to implement building -block
a done deal, that it's going to
strategies.
pass," said Allison Deets, Skagit
«
We are focusing on preservation clusters, defined as adjacent farms
program manager. Farmer
members of the Skagit board,
applying at the same time that make up blocks of preserved acreage,"
while they could benefit from
Lippincott said. "We give these applicants additional points." The program
the measure, she said. One farmer said support it,
had 30 farms apply "in a year of tremendous development pressure."
'growth management is the
In Burlington County, New Jersey's only county in the top 12, strategy
only way we're still in business.'"
e�
September 2005
farmland preservation report
Page 7
Top localities, state programs or donations only, eastern states 1
Rank County Acres Preserved No. Farms Program Market Value (millions)
1 Fauquier (VA)
57,199
350
Va. Outdoors Fdn; local PDR
45.4
2 Addison (VT)
431200
165
Vermont Land Trust
105.9
3 Albemarle (VA)
41,707
219
Va. Outdoors Fdn
19.1
4 Kent (DE)
40,562
198
DE Ag Land Pres Fdn
128.6
5 Caroline (MD)
35,035
n/a
MD Ag Land- Pres Fdn
104.3
6 Franklin (VT)
32,552
114
Vermont Land Trust
115.4
7 Queen Anne's (MD)
24,769
181
MD. Ag Land Pres Fdn, TDR
66
TOTALS:
240,525
584.7 million
Notes: 1 This survey measures landowner interest in the absence of local leadership and administration comparable to
those programs in the "Top 12" ranking conducted by FPR annually. Western states will appear in a later issue.
Programs in Vermont and Delaware have no local administration. Counties in Virginia have local programs limited in
scope and without support from a state program. Donations make up the majority of preserved acres in Virginia
counties. Maryland counties locally administer the state program, but often do not have locally operated programs.
Caroline and Queen Anne's have the top acreage counts among those counties. All acres reported are in farm use.
Sources; Interviews with state or local administrators, Sept. 2005; USDA Census of Agriculture.
Continued from page 6
and money are never in short supply, and acres are
logged at a good clip even with the loss last year of
veteran administrator Susan Craft to the state's top
farmland preservation j ob. Program administrator
Dan Kennedy said this year's county allocations are
roughly $9 million. "We're hoping to keep up or
increase the pace of acquisitions, but in some towns
we're beginning to see the end game of preserva-
tion," Kennedy said. "The next five years will be a
transition, and we're starting to consider what this
program will be about after the acquisitions are
done." Kennedy said his office is already beginning
to think about "how much money it will take to wrap
things up."
Carroll County returns to fifth place, the spot it
held from 2000 to 2004 when it ascended to fourth,
overtaking Sonoma County. Now it has been
overtaken by Berks.
"Well, we're all in the same block of land," said
administrator Bill Powel of Berks' progress. "We'll
have to roll up our sleeves and work harder."
Taking a second look
For the first time, FPR conducted a second
survey to take into account counties with high
acreage totals that don't have local programs. This
survey (see table above), considers landowner
response to the conservation option when it may not
even be promoted at the local government level.
Fauquier County tops the list with 55,252 acres
through easement donation to the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation and 1,947 acres in a locally targeted
PDR program. Fauquier last year began a local
purchase of development rights program funded with
a special taxing district at $1.5 million annually, but it
is not countywide and is limited to an area with the
county's majority of dairies. Elsewhere, equine
operations predominate.
The local program pays a $20,000 flat rate per
development right based on the county's sliding
scale zoning and local appraisals. A PDRcommittee
is proposing an increase to $30,000, which is
expected to be acted on next month.
Two counties in Vermont have had a remarkable
number of farmers donate or sell conservation
easements. Addison and Franklin Counties have
long led the state in number of acres protected
through the Vermont Housing and Conservation
Board's Farmland Preservation Program. It pro-
vides grants to nonprofits, particularly to the Ver-
mont Land Trust, to carry out and monitor its
farmland easements.
Page 8 farmland preservation report September 2005
jobs digest
For full information on these and other
jobs, see Ita.org.
Piedmont Environmental Council
(VA), Culpeper County Land
Conservation Officer - identify key
at -risk properties and natural
resources and develop and implement
protection strategies.Tuolumne River
Trust (CA), Executive Director -
Growing environmental group seeks
executive director to take organization
to next level. The Nature
Conservancy (DE), Director of
Land Protection, Delaware
Bayshores - develop, coordinate and
lead the conservation program for the
Delaware Bayshores project. Provide
entrepreneurial leadership in
developing a well- funded, community -
based, land conservation program.
Sonoma County Agricultural
Preservation Open Space District
(CA), Conservation Acquisition
Specialist - Salary: $5,739 - $6,976
monthly plus excellent benefits.
Harford Land Trust (MD), Executive
Director - Seeking a motivated
professional to manage a 14 year old
non - profit conservation organization
with productive volunteers, an active
Board of Directors and the potential for
a part-time clerical assistant. Salary is
commensurate with qualifications,
experience and fund raising success.
Land Conservancy of San Luis
Obispo County (CA), Conservation
Project Manager - manage and
implement conservation projects
including land acquisitions,
conservation easements, and
resource restoration.
conferences
Sept. 28 -30, Burlington, VT: Rural
Entrepreneurship & Economic
Development Conference, sponsored
by Northeast Regional Center for Rural
Development. Call 814 863 -4656 or see
www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu.
Oct. 14 - 17, Madison, WI: Land Trust
Rally, 18th annual. See LTA.org.
Oct. 16 -19, Greensboro NC: 4th
National Small Farm Conference
sponsored by the USDA Cooperative
State Research, Education and
Extension Service. Call 336 334 -7734
or see www.csrees.usda.gov.Dec.
14, Harrisburg, PA: Future of Our
Food and Farms summit. See
www.foodfarm.org.
EvergreenCap
italAtkisors
INC.
<Fln��r�`ra! ad�esrrr
governmental
farmland
pre- servation
programs
12 Na�sau Street
I?rtizcetE�II, �s.-1 "; �er;.e�• oi;;�.3
tel: (609) 2 „i -oo613
faN; (bog M. q -0065
pa ri )evertrreen ca. com
iv«v6.ctrc r�;te.L a1Ca.C.+art1
Daniel Patiiok O'Con -tell
I': ;siareytt
Land Evaluation & Site Assessment
Plan Development
Consultant to Local & State Governments
LLOYD E. WRIGHT
301681 -7764 Cell: 301221-3423
LEW52841 @aol.com Fax: 301681 -3260
11307 Baritone Court, Silver Spring, Maryland 20901
Jan. 26 -28, 2006, Denver: Fifth Annual
Conference, The New Partners for
Smart Growth. The conference will
highlight cutting -edge smart growth
issues, latest research, implementation
tools, case studies and more. See the
Smart Growth Network website.
Sponsored by Sustainable Communities
Network and US EPA.
BERKELEY
510- 841 -9190
SACRAMENTO
916 - 649 -8010
DENVER
303 - 623 -3557
www.epsys.com
Providing financial analysis and implementation
strategies for farmland preservation and habitat
conservation projects.
PLANNER IV
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE
Expert level in a broad area of planning requiring the highest level of technical
expertise. This position involves review of land development projects for
compatibility with comprehensive land use plans and agricultural and /or rural
community planning. Experience in the use of GIS preferred. Applicants must
have education, training and /or experience demonstrating competence in each of
the following areas: 1. Responsibility for a most complex planning project
(complexity to be determined by variables such as discipline, population, fiscal
impact, geographic area, social impact, planning horizon, public involvement,
research and analysis, and the nature of the project team). 2. Experience as a
Subject Matter Expert by demonstrating knowledge in the review of land
development projects. 3. A minimum of three years experience as a planner or
three years experience performing planning functions. 4. Ability to communicate
effectively.
Salary: $47,102 - $58,877 (Minimum — Midpoint) Pay grade 17
See full description and apply on -line at www.delawarestateiobs.com
or, contact:
Delaware Department of Agriculture, Human Resources Office
2320 S. DuPont Highway, Dover, DE 19901
Phone: (302) 698 -4500
n
it
newsobserver.com
nwsobsrv+. com
pKint window A close window 0
Published: Oct 3, 2005
Modified: Oct 3, 2005 1:15 HM
N.C. turns.over a new leaf: grape
Tobacco giving way to vineyards
The Associated Press
MOUNT AIRY -- Like many North Carolinians who've ventured into growing wine grapes, Van and
Kathy Coe came from farming families but didn't consider themselves farmers.
The threat of losing her family's farm changed that.
Five years ago, the Coes planted about five acres of grapes on the Surry County farm that had been
in Kathy Coe's family for more than 100 years.
"This was the farm I was raised in," said Coe, who works full time as a registered nurse. "It was
tobacco when I was growing up. It's the field I said I would never go back to."
As tobacco fades as a prominent North Carolina crop, interest in growing grapes and making wine is
on the rise. The number of wineries has more than doubled in the state in five years -- from 21 in
2000 to 50 today, with another five expected to open by the end of 2005.
At least 350 vineyards produce grapes for wine production, many of them in the Yadkin Valley.
But grapes may never surpass the production of such North Carolina commodities as hogs or
soybeans, state agriculture officials say. Grapes are unlikely to replace tobacco, as many people
hope, though they thrive in similar soil and climate.
And an export wine industry is years away.
Success largely hinges on one point: quality.
Consistency in the quality of the state's wines is one of the bigger challenges the industry faces as it
grows, said Gil Geise, a viticulture instructor at Surry Community College. Quality, he said, starts in
the vineyard, where some say about 75 percent of winemaking begins.
"The state has spent a lot of money marketing the wines that are being produced," said Grant Holder,
a chemistry professor at Appalachian State University. "Now, they should concentrate on maximizing
the quality of the wine, maximizing consistency so that those prices that must be charged for North
Carolina wines are true reflections of the quality."
Finding a signature grape is another challenge, experts said.
Rainfall and humidity force growers in North Carolina to harvest grapes early at 21 percent or 22
percent sugar -- rather than the ideal 24 percent or 25 percent. A new variety may be the answer,
experts said, possibly one that thrives in wet conditions.
Andy Walker, a viticulture professor and grape breeder at the University of California at Davis, said
the Yadkin region's growers would always have to compensate for the early harvest of grapes, either
through viticulture techniques or.in winemaking and blending.
"Learning that is going to be the tricky part," he said.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast
http : / /www.newsobserver. com/news /v- printer /story /2 80893 0p -925 3 673 c.html
10/3/2005
4 ` Page I of 3
X
., n— t( :A,Ncaii , latiii.liig Asisociallori
�s'ea;�:fi ;WiN ;tees' <� �i`.�Zi ;.�li�lif�• =Fi? �I<�4���?i'.s:
LextisNexiso
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved
Los Angeles Times
September 26, 2005 Monday
Home Edition
CALIFORNIA; Metro; Metro Desk; Part B; Pg. 3
1236 words
Cultivating Hoines for Farmworkers;
A.dvoca.ey groups urge the building of more affordable housing units to support Ventura
County's $1- billion agriculture industry.
Fred Alvarez, Times Staff Writer
In a packed Oxnard College auditorium, a short distance from fields bursting with bell peppers and artichokes,
housing advocate Jessica Arciniega urged students last week to think about those who supply the muscle for
Ventura County's $1- billion farm industry.
She told them that there are as many as 30,000 farmworkers in the county, many of whom live in cars, tool sheds
and garages because of a lack of affordable housing. And while the county's pricey housing market is tough on
workers in all sectors, Arciniega said, it's especially hard on farmworkers, some of whom earn as little as $9,000 a
year plucking lemons and picking strawberries.
"If we want to have sustainable agriculture in Ventura County, we have to address the issue of housing for
farmworkers," said Arciniega, who as coordinator for the House Farm Workers campaign roams the county planting
the seeds for advocacy.
"We want to make sure there is a voice for farmworkers and their needs," she said. "We have to start thinking
about where our farmworkers are living and how they are living."
By all accounts, that awareness is translating into action. Farmworker housing groups have formed in half of
Ventura County's 10 cities, with business leaders, growers, elected officials and others joining an unprecedented
push to eliminate the crowded and often dangerous conditions the laborers endure.
Grass -roots efforts to house farmworkers are underway in Ventura, Santa Paula, Oxnard and Camarillo. And this
week a farmworker housing group in Fillmore will hold its first meeting; adding another voice to a rising chorus of
advocacy on behalf of low -paid laborers.
Corporate travel consultant Nancie Paquin will head the Fillmore group. She decided to get involved earlier this
year after watching a short film produced by the Ag Futures Alliance Farm Worker Housing Task Force, which last
year launched the House Farm Workers campaign.
The effort involves identifying parcels on which housing can be built, helping shape government policies to make it
easier to build farmworker dwellings and advocating on behalf of projects as they come forward.
"I saw the conditions that many of these families were Iiving in, and I just said I need to do something about it,"
Paquin said. "We're not talking about strangers. We're talking about families with children who go to school with
our children."
The increased advocacy comes at an opportune time. Since 1993, when Cabrillo Economic Development Corp.
opened the 100 -unit Rancho Sespe housing cooperative east of Fillmore, only 31 units of farmworker housing have
http : / /www6. lexisnexis- comlpublisherlEndUser? Action= UserDisplayFullDocument &orgId =1593 &topi... 09/27/2005
�• s
Page 2 of 3
been built in the county.
But 350 farmworker units are under construction or in the planning stages. When completed, they will boost by
about half the number of housing units in the county dedicated to farmworkers and their families.
Projects include a 58 -unit south Oxnard development of single - family homes and apartments set to open by year's
end and 100 rental units proposed by farming giant Limoneira Co. for its sprawling Santa Paula ranch.
"It's really good to have this many units in the pipeline, and it's just a drop in the bucket," said Karen Flock,
housing development director for Cabrillo Economic Development Corp.
The Saticoy -based nonprofit, the county's leading builder of low- income housing, is completing construction of the
farmworker project in south Oxnard and has five others in the planning stages. Flock said each would require
extensive community support, pointing to the importance of housing groups that have formed in the five cities.
"It's just incredibly valuable for people in the community to understand the need for this and to come out and be
supportive," Flock said.
The momentum has been built, in part, by years of arm - twisting by affordable- housing advocates. Lawsuits by
legal aid attorneys over the years have prompted commitments to farmworker housing in Oxnard and Camarillo.
The newfound focus also is triggered by a broader concern over housing for all segments of the workforce, as the
median home price in Ventura County approaches $700,000 and the average rent tops $1,300 a month.
But largely the interest has been spurred by a growing belief that in order to keep farmers in business -- which
voters have said they want to do through the adoption of farmland preservation measures -- steps must be taken
to house those who work the harvest.
In response, county officials have surveyed farmworker housing needs and loosened zoning codes to encourage
housing construction for agricultural workers.
Those efforts have been bolstered in recent years by passage of a statewide housing bond, which has funneled
nearly $100 million toward construction of more than 5,000 farmworker housing units since 2003. So far, $11
million of that pot has been allocated to Ventura County for construction and rehabilitation of nearly 200 units.
Included is a $361,000 grant announced earlier this month to replace a dozen dilapidated trailers owned by
farmworkers in south Oxnard.
The attitude shift is most apparent in individual cities, where housing groups have formed and businesses and
residents are contributing money to the House Farm Workers campaign.
"There are many different types of players involved now," said corporate consultant Linda Braunschweiger, who
heads the Camarillo housing group. Her clients include the nonprofit affordable homebuilder Peoples' Self -Help
Housing and Affinity Bank, which has contributed $5,000 to the effort.
"The City Council tends to hear from neighbors who are opposed to certain projects," she said. "What we are doing
is trying to bring [housing advocates] to the table so that when a project comes forward, city officials can hear the
other side."
In each of the cities, the mission of the farmworker housing groups extends beyond advocacy. Members of each
group actively seek to identify parcels on which farmworker housing can be built and help shape government
policies to pave the way for construction of more dwellings.
Nowhere are those efforts paying bigger dividends than in Santa Paula, which has three farmworker housing
projects, totaling 85 units, working through the planning process. Those projects include a 20 -unit apartment
development by the Sherman Oaks -based Corp. for Better Housing, scheduled to break ground in a few weeks.
The $12- million project, which has been three years in the making and required seven layers of financing, will
consist of units with plush carpet, Whirlpool appliances and granite countertops. Units will rent for 40% to 45%
below market rates, or roughly $645 a month for a two - bedroom apartment.
"We are very encouraged that the momentum has changed considerably," said Santa Paula resident Dora Crouch,
an author and architectural history professor who heads the local housing group.
"It's a matter of changing peoples' perceptions," she said. "People are beginning to realize that the need for
farmworker housing is not just 'their' problem, it's our problem too."
Farm housing
http: / /www6. lexisnexis .com /publisherlEndUser? Action= UserDisplayFullDocument &orgId =1593 &topi... 09/27/2005
F Page 3 of 3
Since 1993, only 31 units of farmworker housing have been built in Ventura County. Advocacy groups have formed
in five of the county's cities to help eliminate the crowded and often dangerous conditions endured by some of the
area's 30,000 farm laborers.
Units planned or under construction:
Oxnard: 85
Santa Paula: 85
Fillmore: 20
Camarillo: 40
Ventura: 20
Unincorporated Ventura County: 100
Total: 350
Source: Ag Futures Alliance Farm Worker Housing Task Force
September 26, 2005
Copyright 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
http :// www6. lexisnexis .comlpublisherlEndUser? Action= UserDisplayFullDocument &orgId =1593 &topi... 09/27/2005