Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 122000AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD Time Page 7:30 7:30 7:35 02 7:40 07 N AI PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTI FOOD LAB 306 Revere Road HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Wednesday, December 20, 2000 7:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER 0 01 D Ei C 1 5 2000 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 18 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Farmland Preservation Trust Fund grant / Proposed Conservation Easement b. Shaping Orange County's Future Provisional Report c. New Consensus for Farmland — 2001 Schedule d. Joint Meeting with Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission 5. ANNUAL HOLIDAY GATHERING 9:15 6. ADJOURNMENT v �L DRAFT MINUTES Joint Meeting of the AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD October 18, 2000 PRESENT: Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Noah Ranells, Rodney Recor, Louise Tate, David Stancil, Tina Moon, Carol Crawford. ABSENT: Nancy Goodwin, Elizabeth Walters, Whit Morrow GUESTS: Commissioner Barry Jacobs ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Strayhorn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Strayhorn ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 27 (2) MOTION: Kleese made motion to approve minutes with corrections noted by Ranells. Seconded by Ranells. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Recommendation — 2001 -2002 Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan Stancil reviewed the information beginning on page eleven of the agenda packet. It was noted that the advisory boards are asked annually to provide priorities on input for the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan and that it is time for the year 2001 -2002 planning to begin. Stancil asked what priorities the APB would like to pursue in the coming fiscal year. Previous ideas discussed are: Complete initial pilot project easement, Acquire a second conservation easement, and Look at a combined farmland/cultural area acquisition. Stancil noted that, with a December 10th deadline for Farmland Preservation Trust Fund application, work is progressing on the initial pilot project easement project. Completion may be a priority for the coming year. Pursuit of a second easement might be a second priority. A third idea of a combined acquisition where there are opportunities for conservation easements and acquisitions that meet multiple needs. For example, a park with a farmstead or historic property, or a farm that contains a natural area, where a combination of multiple goals could be obtained. DRAFT Page 1 of 5 () 03 Ranells asked if there was a map this lists farming locations in Orange County. Stancil replied that there has not been a map of actively farmed areas in the county and that ERCD along with Soil & Water and Farm Services is in the process of producing a map by digitizing from aerial photos. Ranells asked for information on the watersheds in the county and their importance. Stancil explained the significance of the ten water supply watersheds in the county and that almost 65% of the county is within a water supply watershed. Watershed protection is a high priority in the county. Mandell asked for information on OWASA financial interest if we should choose land adjoining the Cane Creek watershed. Stancil explained the Clean Water Management Trust fund allocation for the Cane Creek watershed area, and OWASA's Cane Creek Report recommendation to acquire 1300 acres to protect water quality. Mandell asked about conservation easements. Stancil explained that it is an agreement between property owner and an entity that will hold the easement in monetary exchange for granting development rights for the property. Easements may be tailored to the interests of the property owner and the entity. Mandell asked who would hold the easement. Stancil replied that there are preparations being made for a draft agreement between the county and the Soil & Water Conservation office to hold agricultural easements. Strayhorn suggested putting efforts towards Hillsborough water supply preservation in the Upper Eno, as a lot of active farming is continuing in the northern part of the county. Kleese asked if conservation easements require that farms continue to actively farm and stay in agriculture. Stancil replied that this concern is an issue in farm land easements, and it is planned to work with property owners to tailor to their needs. Other transition steps such as managed forestry or less intensive agricultural operations may be acceptable. Kleese noted that if we focus on specific areas, how do we focus on areas that we know are going to continue in agriculture. An idea to setup a structure to help young farmers get into those farms, if the current owners don't want to continue farming, and identify young farmers who may want to go into farming was raised. Mandell suggested an idea of farm trusts. Ranells noted that a Farm Link program, where people can participate in a partnership on a farm and slowly increase their equity in a reasonable way might be an idea. Other discussion included term easements vs. perpetual easements, importance of having a pilot project to show the citizens the program is doable, bond packages, smart growth commission, farmland preservation with watershed protection, guidance on agricultural preservation, and DRAFT Page 2 of 5 �i whether privisions of an easement could require that if a property owner who ceases to be an active farm would have to plant in trees and use best management practices. Tate noted that many farms are leased because the farm owners are no longer interested or able to do the farm work. Kleese suggested a two tier approach where the county works to develop conservation easements that are agriculturally oriented, and at same time identifies people that might want to go into farming, so that as farmers retire they might sell land to a ready pool of interested buyers. Mandell asked for investigation of the Farm Link Program and developing that idea. Kleese suggested investigating a group in the mountains who are doing the Farm Link Program. Renalls suggested the county buy land in the northern part of the county and resell to young farmers with stipulation of continued farming. Jacobs explained the legal problems involved in such an effort. Kleese suggested a hybrid of this idea might be the county actually purchasing prime land in county and holding it, renting out pieces for farming to young farmers with the intention that they would working to bring produce into local markets. Concluding the discussion, the Board noted the importance of land to a farmer, the Cates farm in Efland being for sale, the number- of subdivisions planned for Efland area, cost of farming equipment, farming assets and profits, and the capital investment (both) view of farmland. Stancil suggested that staff write up a recommendations regarding watershed protection being the umbrella under which agricultural easements occur, that Cane Creek watershed is an area of focus under that umbrella, and that the lands building around the critical mass of farmland be a priority. He also noted that the upper Eno water supply is also an area where there's a lot of farmland and an important water supply area for Orange County residents. A short and long term vision statement was suggested as: short term being to get something started and get a few easements out there that shows that this is a program that works; Long term explore ideas about farmland trusts, holding land for renting to young farmers, need to produce products for Hispanic population in this area. Jacobs noted the importance of protecting water supply for several townships. Recor suggested a number of ways to meet multiple objectives, including: preserving parkland in a park -farm concept, that working farms make produce for our citizens. Strayhorn said that a similar project had been tried at Mason Farm some time ago. Recor commented that if a person actually leased the land there would be more commitment, and it could serve all ethnic groups. It would make people aware of what is going on. DRAFT Page 3 of 5 1� For example, signage could be placed identifying a "Orange County park - farm". Kleese suggested identifing an area that is going to be under severe pressure, and build a data base of areas that we should focus on. Once this is done, vote on the top 3 or 5 focus areas and, develop criteria on primary pressures, developments, water /sheds, and prime farmland. Strayhorn said if we need to find some way to offer enough benefits to encourage people to join up under voluntary agricultural districts (VAD) program. It s a commitment on their part, if there is some value to it and, that would be the most economic way we could ever get land put into continued agriculture and farming for at least a set period. The issue was raised that the VAD contract document was too complicated. Staff is developing a draft of less complicated contract for APB review. ITEM #5: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. September 27 Joint Meeting/Follow -up Dates Stancil thanked everyone for their new ideas at the September meeting and asked for any follow -up ideas. Recor wanted to see a way for people with less than 80 acres to participate in the VAD program. Staff was requested to research how other counties interpret the state statutes such as individual farms vs. large sections of a county VAD. b. Voluntary Agricultural Districts Incentives Report Moon presented a report on incentives for voluntary agricultural districts. A two -tier approach as suggested at a previous APB meeting was discussed as written in the handout. Tier One includes ideas on the local the level that the BOCC could pursue, such as Simplify the VAD legal agreement; Work in conjunction with NCDOT to lower the speed limit within VADS's; pursuing allowing farms with less than 80 acres to participate; encourage farmland preservation as a part of the Million Acres program; provide business planning and estate planning free to VAD participants; create incentives to promote the preservation and reuse of farm buildings and supporting structures; establish a demonstration farm program to help farmers convert to more profitable multi -year corps; and develop a program with 10 -year renewable easements and installment purchase easements (PA's) as short-term options to farmers in VADs — with long term options as well. Tier Two included a tax exemption or deferral ideas, such as a property tax exemption for farm buildings, machinery, and equipment; a fifty- percent deferral of use -value access property taxes; a property tax abatement on land donated as a conservation easement; including farms to DRAFT Page 4 of 5 06 be part of local, state or federal farmland preservation programs to be eligible for purchasing agricultural conservation easements; a farmer -to- farmer transfer program that would be exempt from the use -value tax rollback; a PDR and TDR program to work exclusively with VADs; expanding of the use -value program to include equine - related activity sites and provide for the equine industry to participate in the VAD program; and encourage and eventually require state institutions to use local or state grown products. Other discussion included programs of heritage farm as a focal point on VAD's, agricultural tourism, bed & breakfast inns, gift shops selling local produced and home produced goods, catering use of farm buildings, legislative commission on preservation of small family farms, industrial hemp growing forum. The idea of a presentation by the APB on farm preservation for the local Sierra Club in February was broached and information on a Sustainable Agriculture Conference information was distributed. c. February 2001 Ag. Summit Planning Stancil reminded the APB that planning for the annual Ag Summit in 2001 will begin soon and that traditionally the chair of the APB is involved in that step. ITEM #6 ADJOURNMENT DRAFT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Page 5 of 5. ST'EPHENH.HALR7077S, CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BARRYJA COBS. VICE CHAIR MARGARET W. BROWN POST OFFICE BOX 8181 MOSES CAREY, JR. ALICE M. GORDON 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 December 4, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Roe, Executive Director Conservation Trust for North Carolina PO Box 33333 Raleigh, NC 27636 -3333 Dear Chuck: � °uotp of VIA 4 �aco`\� Please find attached an application from Orange County for funding assistance toward the purchase of a farmland conservation easement. As you may know, Orange County has been very interested in farmland preservation for a number of years, having adopted a Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance in 1992. As of this year, 1,355 acres of farmland in the County is enrolled in Voluntary Agricultural Districts (including the attached easement proposal). A conservation easement between Maple View Farms and Triangle Land Conservancy was among the first agricultural easements in the State. However, this would be the County's first farmland conservation easement, developed through our Lands Legacy program Victor C. Walters, Sr. is 92 years old and has been a farmer in Orange County since 1942. His farm has been enrolled in the County's Voluntary Agricultural Districts program since 1992, and contains prime farmland in Cedar Grove Township, one of the County's largest agricultural areas. Since 1942, this farm has been one of many dairies in Orange County, and the 70 -acre parcel proposed for easement is actively used for grazing of dairy and beef cattle by Carl and Elizabeth Walters, Mr. Walters son and daughter -in -law. Mr. Walters has signed a letter of intent to sell the non - agricultural development rights on his property to Orange County. The easement would be held by Orange County through the Lands Legacy program, until a Memorandum of Agreement between the County and the Orange Soil and Water District for monitoring is finalized (a draft is being prepared at this time). A letter of support for this application from the Soil and Water District is attached. The grant application requests $107,000 from the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund to match $108,000 of Orange County funds (a 51 % match) toward this initial farmland conservation easement. The County's Lands Legacy program, adopted in April of this year, has farmland conservation easements as a priority for this and future years. It is anticipated that this initial easement purchase will, *in conjunction with a publicity campaign, heighten awareness of conservation easements as a tool to help keep farmers farming. It is our understanding that these goals are also at the heart of the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund program purposes. The Walters farm contains significant prime soils for agriculture, as evaluated by the Orange Soil and Water District. Finally, we would note that the Walters farm is in the Back Creek water supply watershed (a Class WS -II water supply). Mr. Walters, who was Orange County's Conservation YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY (919) 245 -2130 • PAX (919) 644 -0246 Farmer of the Year in the mid- 1950's, has been a good steward of the land, and has a strong track record in using best management practices for protection of water quality. I trust that this letter and the attached application will be sufficient for your evaluation of our proposal. If you should need clarification or additional information, please feel free to contact David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director, at 245 -2590 (dstancil (_,co.oran_e,nc,us). Thank you, and, we look forward to hearing from the Trust Fund in January/February. Sincerely, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair Board of Commissioners Attachment YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY (919) 245 -2130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246 I,, December 13, 2000 Catherine Wright, editor 18 -1050, cwright @herald-sun.com {j S Coun ne o N tY 9 tiates easement Farmer nearly ready to - sell a conservation aX easenz.ent of 70 acres By ROB SNAPARD chh@herald- sun.com; 732 -6397 HILLSBOROUGH — Although farming is no longer his livelihood, Victor Walters, at age 92, is just as likely to be outside riding his trac- tor or walking his fields as he is inside the house. He spent TLesday morning on his banged -up, red International Farmall 140, turning soil in the garden next to his home on High Rock Road, about five miles north- east of Mebane. "He loves work," said his wife, Lucille Walters, rolling her eyes and smiling. In Part because of decades of hard work improving his farm, Walters doesn't want to sell his property and see it covered up with new homes. But he also sees a point down the road, maybe in a year or so, when he and his wife are going to need more money. Walters said he and his wife want tc stays' at home. But to do so, Lucille Walters needs a home -care Victor Walters, 92, likes to walk the fields on his land north of Ffla cox worker to help her deal with sever- al ailments. And that kind of care can be expensive, certainly more expensive than Social Security can cover. A third factor that Walters is bal- ancing is his desire to pass along land to his three children. To strike the balance between preserving his land and generating income, ' Ualters is near an agree- ment to sell a conservation ease- ment on 70 acres of his property to the Orange County government. The county's Environment and Resource Conservation Depart- ment has been working with Wal- ters on the possible easement, and department Director Dave Stancil estimates it will cost the county about $215,000. The Orange County Commission- ers hope t%'_5' win a grant frolti the please see EASEMENT /PAGE 2 i� EASEMENT FROM PAGE 1 state Farmland Preservation Trust Fund to cover half the cost, while the county would provide about $108,000 in matching funds. The General Assembly allocated about $1.5 million this year for the farmland Preservation fund, through the N.C. Department of Agriculture. The nonprofit Conservation 'Trust for North Carolina administers the fund through an agreement with the Department of Agriculture. The `'alters easement would be the first purchased by Orange Coun- ty, and it would serve as a pilot pro- Jett for the county's Lands Legacy program, Stancil said. "We're very hopeful this will be the first of a series of conservation easements," he said. The commissioners approved Uuids Legacy earlier this year, with a goa] of identifying lands for possi- ble parks and open -space protection. Officials have emphasized the pro- gram is strictly voluntary. Walters has signed a letter of intent with the county — one of the steps required in the Farmland Preservation application process. The parties still have to negotiate Final terms in the deal, but the ease- ment likely would allow agriculture uses to continue on the 70 acres, while uses like residential develop - :uent would be prohibited, in perpe- tuity, Stancil said. In such easement agreements, the landowner keeps ownership and can sell the. property, but the easement restrictions remain with the proper - t V. Walters said it's his understanding that up to three dwelling units would be allowed on the 70 -acre tract as part of the agreement. The tract includes open fields and woodlands, and it slopes from High Rock Road down to a farm pond that Walters built in the 1950s. The 70 acres is part of Walters' 113 -acre farm. His son, Carl Walters, a former dairy farmer for nearly three decades, raises beef cattle and uses the 70 acres partly as pasture- land. Carl and Elizabeth Walters live on an adjacent farm, and Victor Wal- ters' two daughters have property nearby as well. Walters said Carl and Elizabeth Walters have worked with the coun- ty a great deal on the possible con- servation easement. Elizabeth Wal- ters is a longtime member of the Orange County Agricultural Preser- vation Board. The 70 acres, plus about 200 acres on Carl and Elizabeth Walters' farm, are listed in the county's Voluntary Agricultural District program. As for Victor Walters, he was born in Orange County near the Caldwell community, and he bought the High Rock Road property nearly 60 years ago, after he and Lucille were mar- ried. He's raised crops from tobacco to corn to barley, as well as beef cattle. He sold off his last head of cattle about 10 years ago. In 1953, Walters was named the county's Conservation Farmer of the Year, for efforts like controlling ero- sion on his farm. A good deal of open farmland remains in the general vicinity of the Walters property, although residen- tial growth clearly is there as well. According to the county's grant application, permits were approved for 26 new single- family dwellings within one mile of the property in the last three years. And if you extend the distance from the farm to one to two miles, the number of permits is higher than 200 in the last three years. A devel- opment with 300 units is proposed for property three miles from the Walters farm, according to the appli- cation. The plan is for the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District to even- tually take over administration of the Walters easement. In the first official transaction in the Lands Legacy program this year, the county purchased a 63 -acre wooded tract west of Hillsborough, formerly part of Duke Forest. The county currently is working on plans for the "McGowan Creek Preserve" on that property, which would have limited public access. Orange County received a $143,000 grant from the state Clean Water Management Trust Fund to buy the property, and the county paid another $137,000. As the county was working toward approving Lands Legacy, it also agreed to buy a 391 -acre site in part- nership with Durham County. The property is on both sides of the county line along Guess Road, and the counties now are working together on plans for the "Little River Regional Park" on the proper- ty. The counties received two state grants totaling about $677,000 for purchasing that property. The Trian- gle Land Conservancy and the Eno River Association are raising anoth- er $170,000 for the purchase, while Orange and Durham are chipping in $88,000 and $163,000, respectively. �1 Shaping Orange County's Future Provisional Report Advisory Board Review On November 21St, the Board of Commissioners officially referred the Shaping Orange County's Future Provisional Report to a list of 17 advisory boards. The Board has asked for review and comments from the advisory boards by February 28, 2001. These advisory boards are: • Planning Board • Commission for the Environment • Agricultural Preservation Board • Historic Preservation Commission • Advisory Board on Aging • Arts Commission • Board of Health • Board of social services • Economic Development Commission • Commission for Women • Human Relations Commission • Innovation and Efficiency Committee • Recreation and Parks Advisory Council • solid Waste Advisory Board • visitors Bureau • OPC Mental Health Board • Housing /UNC Task Force Please forward the attached report, companion document and summary tables to your advisory board (or boards, please note that a few of you have more than one board listed) for review and comment. A copy of the full report and companion document are also available on the County's web site (www.co.orange.nc.us /shaping). As you will note, some sections of the report are more applicable than others to the mission and charge of the listed advisory boards — and it is in these areas that we would ask your boards to focus their attention. Please send any written comments from your advisory boards to David Stancil by February 28, 2001. The Board will consider the report and the comments from advisory boards at a worksession on March 13. Feel free to contact David if you have any questions about the report or the process. I} To save paper, the entire SOCF report is not provided in hard -copy. To view the entirety of the SOCF Provisional Report, please visit the SOCF web site at: www.co.orange.nc.us.shaping Ln ) ) 0 0 0 0 N w W O O U O Q O N O U rW z 0 /1 11 f ±l ON O1 O C C C ON CIN O C C C -•� O t� � N ry N �N N 13 it - .^r cm n Ict s .0 •G � -O 4J 7:1 > lid Cd o .0 o o 3 a� � vn Ct oz U U O E-+ t O 1. •� O b U W a E ,� o a• U ? r o b U . ° -b �-- � o cn a� o = a -d Ln o ►—a z po o oi 4.� w o b m a' I � 'b o a AU V 13 L7 W z 0 O U O O N � °o N cal Z w O U W z O ON GN O a� Q N c .� cj p ^ � a tr �c s.. c w coo cn V) b o O U � O z � o o > 0 ° b coo � o ct w> cn � o cad U O a U � W M o a rE� U U UO cn a En 1° u o � an W 0 0 0 0 0r --I n (�Y Cnfttlf 7 (;ZTrvn,.r7iit .Y t15 06 Rev-re Rood P. 0. Boy. 8131 Hillsborough, i IC 27278 15 MINUTES Orange County Agricultural Summit Planning Meeting Government Services Center November 20, 2000, 12:00 Noon Members present: Fletcher Barber, Jr., County Extension Director Barry Jacobs, Orange County Commissioner Karen McAdams, Agricultural Extension Agent Royce Hardin, Agricultural Extension Agent Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director Margaret Cannell, Economic Development Commission Louise Tate, Agricultural Preservation Board Gail Hughes, Natural Resource Conservation Service Tina Moon, Department of ERC Kay Evans, Administrative Secretary Welcome and Overview .................................... ............................... Fletcher Barber, Jr. County Extension Director Dr. Barber welcomed everyone to the meeting thanking them for attending. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to formulate ideas for the 2001 Agricultural Summit. Dr. Barber noted that the number of farmers that attended last year's Agricultural Summit was down from the year before. This is a concern as the focus of the Agricultural Summit is to provide farmers with alternative production ideas. At this point he opened the discussion to Karen McAdams and Royce Hardin for proposed program activities. Proposed Program Activities ................................ ............................... W. Royce Hardin Karen McAdams Agricultural Extension Agents Royce Hardin provided a hand -out with an idea for alternative production education involving a three part series. This would involve: 1) Agricultural Meeting — all day meeting with speakers focusing on Marketing Alternatives for agricultural products and services. Ik Focus Areas A) Local Retail Opportunities — Farmer's Markets, restaurants, groceries, on- farm and roadside sales. Possible speakers: Bill Jester (NCCE), Bob and /or Muffin Nutter, Ken Dawson, Alex Hitt or Karl Shaeffer, Beverly Blythe B) Community Supported Agriculture C) Added Income Sources — renting garden plots, custom work, agri - tourism and farm tours D) Selling to local institutions 2) Series of Farm Walkabouts to folks that have adopted some of the practices above or who have diversified their operations. Possibilities include: Dwight Compton, Howard McAdams, Maple View, Jeff Sykes, Others? 3) Possible Estate Planning for Farm Families Seminar — Will include information on means to pass on land and farm assets to family members and preserving farms for the future. Focus again on options such as conservation easements, incentives of voluntary agricultural districts, using a hypothetical farm to show tax incentives (advantages), general tax changes for 2001 and what the outlook for the short-term future might be as far as agricultural economy. At this point, Dr. Barber opened the discussion to the committee. The following ideas were discussed: - Invite Meg Scott- Phipps to speak.. She could give an overview of what she thinks will happen in agriculture during her administration. Commissioner Barry Jacobs will contact her to see if she would be able to speak. Have 15 minute segments spread throughout the meeting on topics such as: - Voluntary Agriculture Districts /Smart Growth - Golden LEAF (longer presentation when/if we are selected) - Conservation Easements /Conservation Tax Credits - County Obstacles and Solutions (What they need to know when starting a business) - A program such as Green Print that is being done by Triangle J. Establish a focus group of farmers to determine areas in the County where it would be best to preserve open space. - Have a half. -day meeting instead of an all -day meeting. - Program activities need to be something "Down on the Farm Practical ". It's hard to get the farmers to come unless the topics are something very agriculturally oriented. - Have the Agricultural Summit video taped and shown on the People's Channel. 1 - Farmers are looking for something less labor intensive than growing vegetables. When they have to pay someone to pick the vegetables, they don't make that much. - Have 2 or 3 speakers to present interesting things that they are doing. Something that the farmers could see themselves doing. Some ideas of this are the corn maze, pumpkins patch farms, etc. There is one farmer in Alamance County that is planting a vineyard and plans to have a winery. - Other ideas were boarding horses, producing hay for horses, direct marketing of beef (getting a meat handlers license and selling meat at farmer's markets). - One idea was to build in your clientele. Develop part of the farm and use the rest for boarding horses and gardening. Karen will talk to others in the state to find examples of this. Dr. Barber stated that the Cooperative Extension Staff will pull together topics to have for our next meeting. From the ideas today, it will probably contain three producer topics and several 15 minute topics. Other Topics for Discussion: Date: The date for the 2001 Agricultural Summit was set for Thursday, February 1, 2001. An inclement weather date was set for Thursday, February 15, 2001. This inclement weather date will also be printed on the invitations. Time: The time for the 2001 Agricultural Summit was set for 9:00am- 1:00pm. Coffee /milk, refreshments and registration will be from 8:30- 9:00am and lunch from 12:00- 1:00pm. Location: The location will be the Schley Grange Hall. Dr. Barber will contact them to see if these dates are open. Budget: (Proposed) Rental of Grange: $ 150.00 Meal: 1,200.00 Postage: 250.00 Refreshments & Honorariums: $ 500.00 Total Budget: $27100.00 i Meal: Hobgood's was chosen to cater the meal. Gail Hughes will contact him for pricing. Committees: Registration: Kay Evans and Margaret Cannell Program: Cooperative Extension Staff Meal: Gail Hughes Advertisement: Dianne Reid, Buck Treadway for Press Release Set Up /Clean Up: Cooperative Extension Staff, Louise Tate Refreshments: Chapel Hill /Carrboro and Hillsborough Chambers of Commerce Next Meeting: The next meeting of the planning committee was set for Monday, December 18, 2000 at 10:30am at the Government Services Center. Meeting adjourned at 1:3 0pm C) C) 0 C%4 r- C\l 'r- E E 0 0 O C ca a_ U 0) (D N CN LO 01) 0 — C*4 ItT 00 04 0) "tt C) 00 Lr) Lr) 00 N 0 (C) t- C.D U) It 0 04 U) u) LO LO a) C) 0 C) r- I,- N 00 C:) CD r- r-- m N 00 U.) ti C) LO Ict M CL; CN CN I,- C� C14 i- C) C-4 't 0 0) 04 LO C) N LO '�t N CII) LO (D CIO CO CY) c1r) M (D r (D m (D N ce) 010 0) r- LO (1) CY) t- I cl) I- (D rl- CL) r- 10)] 0) (1) LO (.C) V-- LO U') 00 OC) 00 00 C41) (D 0 C") C4) LO 04 Ul U') N CN CN C\l C\j U) U') CN N 04 N N C14 N N clq (N (14 CN 04 Ul Oo 0 () C) C) 0 0 0 C) I Z Z I z z Z z z Z' lz z z z > 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 CL cu CL CL 0 0 0 0 CL cu �v cu cu Ef) cu cu I C) Ol IZ T- 2 W I C) 10 1- W -C) 0 C) a) -0 N > 0 cu 0 (D 0) 2— L LL > > ISE' U- U) P- tl- -0 C) E a) 0) 00 0) 00 C CU = a) *- cu - *- cu L- 0 cu U) 0 C) :E t- o 0 0 (n E C: =3 x 0 X 11 0 c- CL 0 E cu cu -r :-.i OL 0 w co LO m (0 C) 0 O C%4 CD 0 CD C) N C) 0 (D C.0 CD co 0 (D '0d N 0) m ce) co 0 Cl) O 0 0 0 0 L) cu '2 2 > U) (D E a) E a) a) CU U) L v) E E a) (n 0 — E a) U) 0 0 0 0 E 0 E 0 = 0 E C: 0 m 0 0 0 Cf) 0 < 0 a 0 En 0 0 CD L- :3 En a) C-) U- (n a) CD E CD (1) . ;a cl 0 E .2 E cu E 0 E 0 < cn E 0 V) m U) cu 4- o E cu E cu cu U- t5 CL a) 0) o cj 06 . �Q a) > < a Q) 0 0 0 W 0 C45 w r_ - > CD CD L) (n -Fu om c cu W L- 0 w W U) 0 0 :3 m 0 75 cu 0 0) 0) 0 0 4— 0 :t-! = E 0 U) a m 3: C.) Cu CU .0 V) m W .2 CU L) CL "C: r- 0 E 0 m CM C)) a) cu 0 z 0 < C) 0 0 M TZ 0 <W 10 LL ca V) V) 0 a) 0 (n U) E E CD :3 CD a) 0- 0 '2 0 0 0 ca cc o 0 E E C-) < 0 Co M 0 0 = m m 0 = CU 0 0 0 0 C- 4- cu CU CO CO C() U 0 T- 12 m :3 U) U) 72 -C: c (D L) Q) a) E CD cc > cu CD > a) (n 'S 'a C: 0 M 0 0 M CU CU C'a M 0 M LL M > Y Of U) < C) U 0) farmland preservation Covering the policies, practices and initiatives report that save farmland and open ace p p Since 1990 • Deborah Bowers, Editor NEW NATIONAL LEADER Pennsylvania overtakes Maryland in farm acres preserved HARRISBURG, PA — Pennsylvania has supplanted Maryland as the nation's leading state in farmland preservation, protecting under easement 170,173 acres, 3,644 more acres than Maryland. Pennsylva- nia has approved an additional 7,630 acres that will likely be settled within 45 days, then bringing the state's total to 177,803 acres, according to Ray Pickering, director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Farmland Protection. The Maryland program has placed 166,529 acres under easement, and has 19,367 additional acres "under contract," according to program assistant Iva Frantz, making a total of 185,872 acres settled and committed. However, because Pennsylvania's program completes easement deals almost twice as fast as Maryland's, and because it has ample dedicated funding sources, officials are confident it will retain its lead over Maryland. By March, according to Pickering, the Pennsyl- vania program will have reached, in approved acres, Maryland's larger number, with settlement reached on most of those acres by the end of May, bringing Pennsylvania's total above the 185,000 - acre mark for settled acres. At that time, according to Frantz, it is unlikely the Maryland prograin acres under contract will be settled. While state farmland preservation programs please turn to page 2 Voters approve scores of local ballots for land protection In more than 200 localities nationwide voters cast ballots on open space funding measures totaling more than $7 billion, with many of those measures including farmland preservation as a target program, according to the Land Trust Alliance (LTA), a national organization for land conserva- tion groups. According to LTA director of public policy Russ Shay, of 204 known local measures tallied, 166 passed. More than half of the measures took place in states with state - administered farmland preservation programs, including New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, California and Rhode Island. Many of the new funding pots will help counties or townships establish matching funds to participate in state farmland preservation programs. please turn to page 2 Volume 11, Number 2 Nov. -Dec. 2000 inside this issue ... Ma. program dwelling rule change .............................. P. 5 Delawareelects conservationists .... ............................... P. 5 Oregon voters send land use law to trial ..................... p. 6 Jobpostings ....................................... ............................... p. 7 Farmland Pre sr;rvation Report is published 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $185 includes index and hotline service. Editorial and Bowers circulation offices: 900 La Grange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 - (41 C) 692 -2708 • ISSN: 1050 -6373. Z 2000 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Publishing, Inc. Reproductiun in any form, or forwarding of this material electronically without permission from the publisher is prohibited. Page 2 Nov. - Dec: 2000 farmland preservation report Pennsylvania counties have control over applicant process continued from page 1 are not in competition with one another, accumu- lation of acres is an indication of political commit- ment as well as administrative efficiency. Program administrators in Pennsylvania say they have it all over Maryland, because they have more control over the process at the local level. In Pennsylvania, a farmer who submits an application to sell an easement will wait from eight months to one year before sitting down to the settlement table. But in Maryland, a farmer will wait 18 months to two years. According to Pickering, the Pennsylvania process is helped along by local administrators who accept the applications and conduct the technical work of surveys, appraisals and title work before the projects go before the state board for approval. Once approved, a project can be finalized in as little as 30 days. But in Maryland, farmers apply directly to the state, and all the technical and legal work is done by the state Department of General Services (DGS), which handles all the state's land and easement acquisitions — work that has increased substantially over the last decade. Prior to reach- ing DGS, applications are shuffled between the state and the counties for ranking. Local adminis- trators say a two -year wait is not unusual. Some local administrators in Maryland com- plain that the program's administration is diffuse — that no single person is in control, and that the process depends on an agency in which efficiency is near impossible — for the 147 applications approved by the Maryland Agricultural Lands Preservation Foundation last July, only three settlement attorneys are available at DGS. Local program administrators in Pennsylvania said state program operation has been running smoothly and the period between application and settlement has shortened by about three months over the last several years. Pennsylvania Gov. Torn Ridge is expected to announce the program's new status at an event in December. Farmland program states host half of nation's land initiatives continued from page 1 New York In New York, 11 towns passed tax increases or bond referenda for open space preservation amounting to more than $90 million in expected revenues and borrowing power. In the Town of Warwick, in Orange County, $9.5 million in bond funds will be dedicated to a purchase of develop- ment rights program. In West Chester County, N.Y., just north of New York City, five towns passed measures totaling $17 million in new spending, according to Tom Anderson of the West Chester Land Trust. All but one passed by more than 60 percent of the vote. While some of the money will be spent on urban open space in this county of 900,000 resi- dents, the northern part of the 450,000- square mile county has "lots of farms." Nurseries, apple orchards and horse farms dominate the agricul- tural economy, Anderson said. West Chester County officials last year formed an agricultural district board and a plan for farmland protection in order to participate in the state farmland preservation program. Now, they will have matching funds to qualify. The question now is, according to Anderson, how far $17 million will go in an area with some of the highest land values in the region. Pennsylvania In Pennsylvania, Bucks County and Chester County figured heavily in the state's local initia- tive activity, with three and two townships respec- tively passing open space spending measures. please continue to page 3 Nov. - Dec. 2000 Page 3 farmland preservation report Local ballots, continued from page 2 In Bucks County, two townships, Hilltown and Springfield, approved income tax increases and one township, Upper Makefield, approved a $15 million bond issue, the largest spending approval in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. "I think most of it is for farmland — parkland is not as high a priority," said Rich Harvey, adminis- trator for the Bucks County farmland preservation program. Upper Makefield has a track record of pursuing farmland protection, he said. The Bucks County program has preserved 4,500 acres on the fringes of Philadelphia where a $10,000 per -acre cap was established to limit costs. Three years ago the program got $13.5 million from a $59 million bond issue, of which $5.8 million was allocated last year along with $3.5 million from the general fund. The county pro- gram currently has $7.5 million. "We have a lot of money, but it's hard to keep up. We're really short staffed here at the planning commission," Harvey said, with four or five planner vacancies. New Jersey New Jersey clearly won the local initiative sweepstakes, with 45 localities voting to spend money on open space and farmland preservation. Only one locality with a land protection referen- dum rejected the measure. At least one -third of the measures specifically mentioned farmland preservation. However, "nearly all the measures are for both farmland and open space," said Steve Jandoli of the state's Green Acres Program. Sussex County was more explicit, designating 90 percent of funds for farmland, he said. According to Jandoli, 19 of the state's 21 counties now have dedicated reve- nues for open space acquisition, as well as 144 of 566 municipalities. Countywide initiatives were also passed in Gloucester, Camden and Union Counties. Two established new taxes In Burlington County, the state's most aggres- sive in farmland protection, seven townships passed local measures supporting open space and farmland protection, six using a dedicated portion of the property tax, and one, Mansfield, approving a bond issue of $1 million for open space and farmland preservation. Two years ago, New Jersey voters approved the nation's largest land preservation fund — $1.4 billion in bond money over 10 years. With an ambitious goal of preserving a million acres in 10 years, the money is split between the state farm- land preservation program, administered by the State Agricultural Development Committee and the Green Acres Program. Ohio Ohio voters approved $200 million for conser- vation initiatives and $200 million for brownfields revitalization projects. The Clean Ohio Fund, a bond act, passed by 57 percent of the vote. A campaign chaired by Gov. Bob Taft and U.S. Sen. John Glenn promoted passage of the act, and more than 200 organizations statewide endorsed it. According to a campaign press release, the $400 million fund will be used for "locally driven projects such as protecting Ohio's water, revitaliz- ing urban areas by stimulating new investment in blighted neighborhoods, expanding outdoor recreational opportunities and preventing the loss of valuable farmland through voluntary agricul- tural easements." The next step, according to Howard Wise of the Ohio Farmland Preservation Office, is for the General Assembly to pass implementing legisla- tion. "Gov. Bob Taft will ask the legislature to earmark $25 million for a pilot agriculture ease- ment purchase program," he said. Ohio's program is already established, but will receive its first funds through the bond act. The $25 million will be spread over four years. Taft originally pro- posed the open space and farmland preservation fund in November 1998 when he was governor - elect, following passage of legislation that author- ized PDR. In 1996, proponents discovered that please turn to page 4 Page 4 Nov. -Dec. 2000 farmland preservation report California voters tally mixed results on land protection continued from page 3 Ohio law precluded government entities from holding easements. The governor will request the state program be structured to provide 75 percent of project costs with localities providing a 25 percent local match, which can be in the form of easement donation or bargain sale, according to Wise. California California voters produced a real mixed bag of decisions on measures involving tax increases or bond issues for land protection. Countywide measures surprisingly failed in the ag powerhouse counties of Napa and Sonoma, and in Placer and San Luis Obispo Counties. In Placer County, which includes the northern half of Lake Tahoe, a proposed dedicated sales tax in- crease of one - quarter cent for 75,000 acres of open space purchases and easements failed by 72.6 percent of the vote. The increase would have generated $200 million over 20 years. In San Luis Obispo County, where residents have become accustomed to innovative land protection schemes including a transfer of devel- opment credits program to save critical coastal spaces, 59 percent of voters rejected the idea of having the final say in whether agricultural lands are rezoned. Sonoma County ranks fifth nationally for farmland acres preserved and first in the amount of money available for preservation, but voters . rejected a plan by the Greenbelt Alliance to freeze zoning for 30 years, preventing changes unless voters approve them. The measure was voted down by 57.4 percent of the vote. However, the city of Sonoma approved an urban growth bound- ary by 63.5 percent. Statewide, urban growth boundary (UGB) measures fared moderately, with just five of nine approved. Californians may not have felt urgent about local land protection, since last March, in the state's primary election, they approved bond issues totaling $2 billion for watershed protection, parks, clean water, clean air and coastal protec- tion. The measure allocated $25 million for farm- land preservation. According to the California Planning and Development Report, 21 of 34 "slow growth" measures on local ballots passed and 13 of 22 "pro- growth" measures were defeated, making sloe growth proponents the victors in 34 of 55 measures, or 62 percent. However, the failed Sonoma and San Luis Obispo measures were closely watched and noted as serious losses. Rhode Island Rhode Island voters approved a $34 million bond issue for land conservation, but just $5 million will go to the farmland preservation program, according to program director Ken Ayers. However, Ayers said, "the other monies can be used to protect farms for other purposes," such as open space. Rhode Island's farmland preservation pro- gram has consistently lagged behind neighbor states in funding and implementing farmland protection. It's last allocation of $2 million didn't go far. Perhaps the larger measure of success in the state was the passage of all 12 local measures that were placed on town ballots for open space and farmland protection, totaling $17 million. Several of the measures mentioned purchase of develop- ment rights and agricultural preservation. "What that means for us is that our $5 million will go a lot further," Ayers said. Other states In Colorado, open space and ranchland protec- tion is conducted by Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO), a quasi - governmental agency through grants to organizations from lottery proceeds, but there is no state program for agricultural lands specifically. With 15 local land protection meas- continue to page 5 Nov. - Dec. 2000 Page 5 farmland preservation report etcetera ... i New funding, dwelling rule change in Ma. Boston, MA —The Massachusetts legislature appropriated $10 million to the Agricultural Restriction Program that will "keep us going a year to a year and a half," said Rich Hub- bard, assistant commissioner of state Department of Food and Agriculture. The money is added to a recent $2 million authorization. The program, now in its 23rd year, has protected about 4,000 acres through bond funding and federal grants. According to Hubbard, the program is in the midst of a rule change that could grant one building right to existing pre- served farms "as long as the program gets a first right of refusal to the property. They could sell the lot for whatever they want, but we would buy the land at agricultural value, and all would be approved on a case by case basis." Currently, new program enrollments are allowed no residual development rights. The rule change must go to public hearing and to the legislature for approval. Rich Hubbard, 617 626 -1704. Delaware elects conservationists to top posts Dover, DE— While they lacked funding measures for land protection, Delaware voters chose known conservationists to be their governor and U.S. Senator. Governor -elect Ruth Ann Minner was supported strongly by open space and environmental interests she has carried with her since her days in the state senate when she initiated the first open space acquisition in the state, according to Michael McGrath of the Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Foundation. "She devised and brokered a share of the open space tax to go to farmland, and she is on record as supporting farmland preservation," he said. "Her campaign record shows an inclination to join together open space and farmland protection." The Delaware farmland protection program has been searching for a more permanent funding source. "People in farmland preservation are very pleased with the outcome of the election," McGrath said. In addition to electing a conservationist as governor, Delaware sent its former conservation- minded governor to the U.S. Senate. Tom Carper, U.S. Senator- elect, "will benefit us ... he will go in with the idea [farmland preserva- tion] was a winner in Delaware, that its something you can look good with." Mike McGrath, 302 739 -4811. Local ballots, continued from page 4 ures on the November ballot, five failed, and of those five, three called for tax increases to fund purchase of development rights in Teller, Grand and Weld Counties. The Weld and Teller ballots mentioned farmland specifically. In South Carolina's Beaufort County, voters approved a $40 million bond issue for open space acquisition and purchase of development rights on farmland, but just north in Charleston County, full of tomato growers and other produce farms, a sales tax initiative for open space and farmland failed by just 800 votes, according to planner Dan Pennick. "I'm sure it will reappear on the ballot. It's encouraging that it did come that close." In Wake County, North Carolina, voters passed a $15 million bond for open space and farmland, but it may be too little and way too late in the fast - growing Research Triangle area where land values are skyrocketing. No specific amount is designated for farmland protection — it is just "in the mix," said Rick Bailey, director of the Wake County Soil and Water Conservation Dis- trict. In Michigan's Washtenaw County, voters approved a dedicated property tax increase for "acquisition of environmentally - valuable areas, to preserve wildlife habitat, water quality and rec- reation." Estimated revenue over 10 years is $25 million. Two years ago, Washtenaw County was a battleground leading up to election day when development interests succeeded in crushing an initiative that would have established a purchase of development rights program for farmland and a 0.4 mill property tax increase to fund it. In Maryland, Baltimore County voters ap- proved $10 million in bond issues for open space and $2 million for farmland preservation. In Montana, where a farmland preservation program started last year with just $1 million, one county, Gallatin, approved a $10 million bond issue for land preservation. In Wisconsin, which has no state purchase of development rights program, Sheboygan County voters passed an "advisory measure" to establish please turn to page 6 Page 6 Nov. - Dec. 2000 farmland preservation report OREGON SEEKS TAKINGS CLAIMS Vote may wreck nation's most renowned land use law PORTLAND, OR — Oregon voters went against the grain Nov. 7 and approved what will likely be the nation's most far - reaching property rights compen- sation measure, with effects to be felt throughout this state's historic, nationally renowned growth management regulations. Experts say approval of Measure 7 will have extensive implications for environmental protec- tions in plac since passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973, Oregon's long- touted land use planning law. Measure 7, which amends the state constitution, requires state and local governments to pay land- owners when a law or regulation reduces property value by any amount. Because some of the lan- guage of the new law is vague, no one knows which regulations or rules long administered under SB 100 will be affected. That will likely be deter- mined by the state's landowners as lawsuits are filed. Planners and conservationists are stunned by passage of Measure 7, said land use consultant Local ballots, continued from page 5 a fund that would include money for agricultural lands and open space. According to the Land Trust Alliance, last year voters passed 90 percent of 102 local measures au -. thorizing $1.8 billion in local taxing authority and bond issues for land preservation. The year before, voters passed 84 percent of 148 referenda totaling $8.3 billion in spending authority. The success of these measures prompted consideration of spend- ing bills in Congress to supplement local initiatives, most notably through the Conservation and Rein- vestment Act (CARA) which failed to move through Congress and was supplanted by a Depart- ment of Interior appropriations package that in- cluded no funds for farmland preservation. No additional funds have been forthcoming in other appropriations bills before Congress. Mitch Rohse, former communications director for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and an expert on Oregon land use law. "The reasons for passage were pretty murky. I think the measure was widely misunderstood," Rohse said. "The legislature convenes in January. It might be able to adopt legislation that would flesh out some of the details in how it would be admini- stered ... but it's a conservative legislature." A study commissioned by 1000 Friends of Oregon identified 90 state and local regulations that could be tested, including comprehensive plans and zoning and subdivision ordinances. Included in that study was an opinion that the law "is clearly intended to include regulations adopted in the past but enforced in the future ... although new laws are generally applied prospec- tively, a new law will be applied retrospectively if such intent is clearly stated," and the law is clear on that point, the opinion said. The study, conducted by ECONorthwest, the region's largest economics consulting firm, said the impact of Measure 7, "would extend beyond tradi- tional land -use restrictions because the initiative specifically defines property to include structures, minerals, forest products, and other crops. Conse- quently, building codes, safety regulations, and a variety of environmental regulations are also covered by the measure." These would include urban growth boundaries and recent restrictions on rural land divisions. Because urban growth boundaries bolster property values for landowners inside the bound- ary and could be seen to reduce values outside it, landowners outside could request payment for lost development opportunities, the study said. According to Rohse, the Oregon Land Conser- vation and Development Commission, following Measure 7's passage, "had a conference call and decided to suspend rulemaking on UGBs and development in areas with natural hazards, to see how Measure 7 will work." please continue to page 7 Nov. - Dec. 2000 Page 7 farmland preservation report Oregon, continued from page 6 Rural land use restrictions could also be hard hit. Downzonings, including the most recent that affected about 89,000 acres and created a two -acre minimum lot size, could trigger Measure 7 claims, the study's authors believe. Measure 7 amends Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that "private property shall not be taken for public use ... with- out just compensation..." and state courts have found that government regulations can effect a taking when that regulation deprives the owner of "all economically viable use," following Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. Now, Measure 7 will require payment when a restriction is determined to reduce fair market value by any amount. While conservationists, notably 1000 Friends of Oregon, vow to seek ways to at least mitigate the effects of Measure 7, any quick solution is unlikely, experts say, because constitutional amendments are difficult to overturn. "If there is a basis, I haven't come up with it yet," said law professor and takings expert Donald Large of the Northwestern School of Law, to The Oregonian. Without a court injunction, environmental and farm and forest lands regulations are likely to suffer, conservationists say, because local govern- ments will be unable to withstand large compensa- tion costs, and so may stop enforcing affected laws. According to Art Schlack, policy manager for the Association of Oregon Counties, city and county attorneys are scrambling "to reach some consensus as to what to advise" local government on how to implement the new law, such as what technical criteria should be required for claims. Oregon joins at least four other states that enacted compensatory takings laws in the last 10 years, but that require a certain level of compensa- tion. Texas, for example, requires compensation only when the cited regulation diminishes value by 25 percent or more. Mississippi passed a law with a 40 percent kick -in, applying to farm and forest lands. A Florida law is more open- ended, requiring compensation when a law "inordinately burdens" a use. Many other states have laws requiring that proposed laws be assessed for their impact on property rights before enactment. Oregon's attorney general will issue an opinion on Measure 7's impact before the law takes effect Dec. 7. Contact: Mitch Rohse, 503 559 -6558 or mitchrohse @home.com.; Art Schlack, 503 585 -8351. L essional resources ... Job Postings Assistant Farmland Preservation Program Coordinator, Burling- ton County, (NJ) - An enthusiastic self - starter needed for successful and innovative Farmland Preservation Program. Responsibilities include support to the easement purchase program; interfacing with the state farmland preservation program; public outreach; and information management. The qualified applicant will possess excellent written, organizational, and interpersonal communication skills and will have strong computer skills. Candidate should be able to manage multiple priorities, work interactively with a small staff, and speak publicly. A degree in agriculture, environmental science, planning, or a related field is required. County residency will be required. Valid New Jersey driver's license required. Send resume to: Susan E. Craft, Coordinator Office of Land Use Planning, Burlington County Office of Land Use Planning, P.O. Box 6000, Mount Holly, NJ 08060. Email resume to CMurphy @co.burlington.nj.us SCraft @co.burlington.nj.us or fax (856) 642 -3860. Resource Conservation Coordinator, Burlington County, (NJ) - Enthusiastic self- starter needed for a land and resources conservation position in the county's Office of Land Use Planning. The two primary areas of responsibility include coordinating the county's growing Open Space and Parkland Acquisition Program and facilitating the County's Watershed Management Area (WMA) Planning process within the Rancocas Creek watershed. Responsible for all aspects of land acquisition including interface with county's Open Space Advisory Committee and coordination with municipal officials, landowners, consultants and the State Green Acres program. Collaborate with the Parks Department in the development of county park plans. Must be energetic and capable of managing multiple priorities and responsibili- ties. Bachelor's degree in landscape architecture, environmental planning, land use management, forestry, or a related field, and at least five years professional experience. Position available immedi- ately. Salary commensurate with experience. Residency in Burlington please continue to page 8 Page 8 farmland preservation report Nov, - Dec, 2000 County required. Resumes and inquiries to Susan E. Craft, PP, Coordinator, Office of Land Use Planning, P O Box 6000, Mount Holly, NJ 08060, (856) 642 -3850, e -mail: SCraft @co.burlington.nj.us Executive Director, Three Valley Conser- vation Trust (OH) - Applicants must have a strong commitment to protection of land resources; communications and negotiating skills; documented fundraising experience; administrative and management experience preferably with a nonprofit organization; ability to relate effectively with a variety of landowners groups, natural resources professionals and the public; ability to work decisively while also working effectively with a Board of Trustees. Bachelor's degree required; graduate degree in a related field preferred. Salary and benefits dependent upon qualifications. Submit letter and resume to: Search Committee, Three Valley Conservation Trust, P.O. Box 234, Oxford, OH 45056. (posted 11/9/00) Potomac Watershed Partnership Coordi- nator, Potomac Conservancy (VA) - This position will administer, implement, and promote the new Potomac Watershed Partnership (PWP) Large -scale Watershed Restoration Project, a partnership of federal and state government and private conserva- tion groups. The Coordinator will facilitate communication between partners; develop outreach and communication tools; assist in fund raising; provide technical assistance, and program and financial management; represent PWP in varied settings; and evaluate, interpret, and synthesize information to guide activities. Require- ments: degree in related field; proven project management experience; ability to work effectively with diverse constituents; excellent communication skills; willingness to travel throughout the watershed; high energy professional with commitment to protecting the Potomac River and its landscape through public /private initiatives. Experience working with government agencies a plus. Excellent benefits including 403(b) plan; salary commensurate with ex- perience. Apply immediately w/letter and resume to Matthew Logan, Executive Director, Potomac Conservancy, 1730 North Lynn St., Ste. 403, Arlington, VA 22209. Open until Nov. 30. Project Associate, The Trust for Public Land (CO) - This position, located in Denver, assists the Colorado team in preserving critical open space utilizing nonprofit land acquisition, public finance and planning techniques by performing project research, program administration and coordination. Responsibilities include: assisting program staffing all phases of public finance projects, including research, polling, public outreach and campaign implementation: providing research of land ownership, land use, legal, political, and economic issues associated with land acquisition projects; coordinating grassroots support for projects; and providing overall help to the Colorado team. Qualifications: Industrious and independent worker; good judgment; bachelor's degree; two years experience; familiarity with Colorado land use issues, communities, and governments; superior written and verbal communications skills; political campaign experience a plus. Letter of interest and resume to Human Resources, TPL, 418 Montezuma, Santa Fe, NM 87501. For more information visit www.tpi.org. Salary DOE. We are actively recruiting a diverse work force. (posted 11/ 3/00) For other positions with land trusts, see the Land Trust Alliance Web Site at www.Ita.org. Conferences & Workshops Jan. 12 - 13, Hagerstown, MD: Farming for Profit and Stewardship, sponsored by Future Harvest - Chesapeake Alliance for Sustain- able Agriculture. On -farm processing and value -added options; improving soil fertility; develop new ag enterprises. Contact Bruce Mertz, 410 604 -2681 or email to fhcasa @umail.umd.edu. March 1 - 3, 2001, Park City, UT: 2001 National Green Space Design Conference: Redefining the Legacy of Open Space, sponsored by the Green Space Design organization. Learn practical methods of open space preservation from industry leaders. Keynote speakers: Randall Arendt, president, Greener Prospects; Will Rogers, president, Trust for Public Land; and others. Call 1- 877 -GSD -PLAN or see www.greenspacedesign.com. March 13 - 16, Atlanta, GA: Rebuild America, National Forum 2001, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. Features innovative projects and leading experts on sustainable communities, energy efficient technologies, clean energy & transportation, high - performance buildings and community revitalization. Call Christina Van Fleck, 301 588 -4229 or email to rebuildamerica @drintl.com. Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! Tired of dead ends on the web? Need a quick answer to help formulate policy or lead a discus- sion? Call us at (410) 692 -2708 or email us. We're faster, friendlier and smarter than the web! - Phone -- (410) 692 -2708 -- Fax -- (410) 692 -9741 Email -- BowersPub @aol.com -- Address Bowers Publishing Inc. 900 LaGrange Rd. Street M D 21154 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD 2001 CALENDAR beefing /agenda Schedule -2001 Meetings at Planning Conference Room 7:30 p.m. Agenda Preparation Agenda Mailout Day Meeting/ Location January 9 Wednesday, January 10 Wednesday, January 17 -Tuesday, Tuesday, February 13 Wednesday, February 14 Wednesday, February 21 Tuesday, March 13 Wednesday, March 14 Wednesday, March 21 Tuesday, April 10 Wednesday, April 11 Wednesday, April 18 May 8 Wednesday, May 9 Wednesday, May 16 -Tuesday, Tuesday, June 12 Wednesda , June 13 Wednesday, June 20 August 7 Wednesday, August 8 Wednesday, August 15 -Tuesday, Tuesday, September 11 Wednesday, September 12 Wednesday, September 19 Tuesday, October 9 Wednesday, October 10 Wednesday October 17 Tuesday, November 13 Wednesday, November 14 Wednesday, November 21 Tuesda , December 11 1 Wednesday, December 12 Wednesday, December 19 12/01/00