Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 052103COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: May 14, 2003 11�4 Re: May 21 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting scheduled for: Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2590) by Monday prior to the meeting if you will be unable to attend. Copies: Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Mike Lanier, Ag Economic Development Specialist AGENDA May 21, 2003 Planning and Agricultural Center Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 7:30 p.m. Time Pale AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER/ INTRODUCTIONS 7:35 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:36 01 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — (March 19, April 16) 7:40 13 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Proposed UNC Student Project — Agricultural Heritage (Attachment 1) b. Strategies for Farmland Preservation (Attachment 2) C. Proposed Agricultural Boards Breakfast 8:00 17 5. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Consideration of Recommended Agricultural Priority Areas (Attachment 3) b. APB Community Meeting Sites — Fall 2003 8:50 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Farmland Preservation Report" b. Articles... DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD April 16, 2003 PRESENT: Tony Kleese, Louise Tate, Elizabeth Walters, Noah Ranells, Gordon Warren, Environment & Resource Conservation Preservation Planner Tina Moon, and Carol Melton. ABSENT: Don Johnson, Bob Strayhorn, Kim Roberts, Rodney Recor, Marty Mandell, and Whit Morrow ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Kleese called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and noted that in the future the APB should not schedule a meeting on the same evening as the Junior Livestock Show. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 19, 2003 Due to lack of quorum, this item was deferred for the next meeting. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Strategies for Farmland Preservation (Continued from March) At the previous meeting the APB discussed strategies for preserving farming and farmland, and tried to categorize the potential strategies based on where they might take action. Tools linked to land use planning, for example, might be forwarded on to Comprehensive Planning staff and the Land Use Committee: Other suggestions, such as finding new markets for local products, might be better adopted as part of a stand alone Farmland Preservation Element. Per the APB's request, staff reorganized the list of strategies from the March meeting's brainstorming session into a matrix "Strategies for Farm & Farmland Preservation" for further analysis. Members reviewed the matrix categories of (1) Profitability in terms of business and (2) Preserving Land & farmers as viable opportunity and (3) Preserving farmland. After discussion among new and long -time members regarding APB goals the group determined that more specific comments to the CPLUC might be appropriate. Warren added that the APB needs to get support for agricultural infrastructure in the county such as some kind of processing facility, and a farm services center. Farm services should be consolidated in one practical location. Kleese asked Moon for suggestions for appropriate language for a statement. DRAFT 02 Members discussed the following suggestions for CPLUC statement: ➢ Preservation of farmland by Designated Agricultural Zones ➢ Recognize that in some areas, agriculture is the best land use — Agricultural Priority Areas based on soils and watersheds ➢ Encourage Planning to work with ERCD and farming agencies to identify agricultural priority areas ➢ Increase opportunities for value added businesses ➢ Encourage a right to farm mentality ➢ Those areas that are designated as agriculture to have lower density ➢ Approach agricultural preservation within the context of making farming profitable ➢ Training /preserve farmers as viable opportunity ➢ Preserving farmland ➢ Involve the APB in the process of designating areas as Agricultural Priority Areas Members decided to review the matrix of ideas to identify those key elements that fall into the context of the CPLUC and revise their previous comments for recommendation at the next meeting for a formal vote. Of the 40 items included in the list of strategies (matrix) the following were identified for land use element recommendation: #1 Develop Preservation Strategies that focus on profit & survival #3 Construct a value added marketing facility #8 Obtain funding for PDR and for Land Link Program #9 Develop farm preservation programs and farm training programs — agricultural resources center accessible to farming community #12 raise the Agriculture profile #14 Include Agricultural Priority Areas as identified by APB #27 Build Agricultural Resource center (high priority) Ranells suggested including goals time lines in what we put forward. Kleese mapped out draft statement: Agricultural Preservation has a social, economic and historic contribution to our county. We want to see it preserved. The main ways we think the CPLUC can deal with this is by designating agricultural priority areas, which would come from a recommendation from the APB. Once these areas are established we want to see agricultural preserved in these areas by positive economic incentives including the following things: ➢ TDRs / PDRs ➢ Supporting infrastructure ➢ Conservation Easements ➢ Agricultural Districts ➢ Land Link Program ➢ Agricultural Resource Center —value added facility ➢ Alternative Business Models for land ➢ Estate Planning Support DRAFT Members discussed using the Historic Preservation Element as a template model to come up with agricultural preservation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Historical & wildlife elements were also noted as important parts to be included. Kleese requested staff to take the information discussed and write a statement to be forwarded to the CPLUC and, to mail to members for a formal vote. b. Updates to APB Portion of ERCD Web Site Members reviewed the current web site pages and noted that the meeting calendar needs to be updated. Kleese asked Walters, as the APB archivist, to enhance and add to the history information. Members also asked staff to add to the site things that the APB has accomplished since 2000. Ranells suggested additional links to farmland sites such as the American Farmland Trust. C. Proposed Agricultural Boards Breakfast Previously members agreed to have a breakfast meeting with other farm - related agencies. The first meeting should focus on getting to know the other staff members. The next meeting(s) can include interested members of the community. Groups to include: Cooperative Extension Service, Farm Service Agency, S &W Conservation, NCRS, Commissioners, EDC, and Mike Lanier. Members discussed a Hillsborough location for the event such as the Village Diner or Kelsey's Cafe. Anticipated breakfast time - -8: 00 a.m. As discussed at a previous meeting staff polled members for a date in May and wrote a letter from this board inviting the other agencies to the breakfast with some of the different farm - related agencies. Kleese signed the letters for distribution to Farm Service Agency, Cooperative Extension Service and Soil & Water Conservation agency. Possible dates are May 8, 13, 14 and 15. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn by Warren, seconded by Ranells. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DRAFT 6 � DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD March 19, 2003 PRESENT: Tony Kleese, Don Johnson, Whit Morrow, Kim Roberts, Rodney Recor, Noah Ranells, Gordon Warren, Marty Mandell, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, Environment & Resource Conservation Preservation Planner Tina Moon, and Carol Melton. GUESTS: Carl Walters, Spence Dickinson ABSENT: Louise Tate,. Elizabeth Walters, and Bob Strayhorn ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Kleese called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and welcomed new member Don Johnson. Members introduced themselves and talked about their interests in county agriculture. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Guest Spence Dickinson requested that the APB review a draft document that he is planning to get to our State Legislators. He has already spoken with Agricultural Commissioner, Meg Scott Phipps, about some of the changes to North Carolina law that he would like to see regarding small farms. ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 15, 2003 & February 19, 2003 MOTION: Gordon motioned approval of January 15 and February 19, 2003 minutes with a noted correction. Seconded by Ranells. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Facilitated Discussion of 2003 Goals /Strategies for Preservation and Land Use Kleese noted that the main topic for the evening was to discuss strategies for preserving farming and farmland, and to try to channel or categorize those ideas into different directions based on where they might take action. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan might be one area of action, for example. As a long -term vision, the APB should also try to get clear about what kinds of things the board wants to endorse. Stancil suggested that the group list out strategies, and then sort them based on ideas that should be directed toward the Comprehensive Land Use Committee, and ideas that should be looked at further by this group as part of the farmland preservation efforts. Stancil added that, at the last meeting we had a lot of ideas being floated around in context of providing feedback to Mandell and Ranells serving on the CPLUC —the DRAFT committee that is looking at updating the land use plan for the county. That feedback session developed into a broader discussion about a lot of different things. Warren said the first item should be to come up with a farmland presentation element - -based on the Historic Preservation Element that was in the packet. He noted that there are some historic farmlands that are a part of the historic element and we need to build on that, since we feel that the cultural aspects are an important part of farmland preservation. Kleese suggested preservation strategies that focus on profitability & survival. Mandell distributed a list of items noting that she felt that historically the county had three prominent areas: 1- Government, 2- Agricultural, and 3- Education. She described her proposal as putting agriculture and agricultural businesses on par with education as the most important industry that Orange County. She noted that the four county boards that are involved in agriculture should meet seasonally with citizens throughout the county to, start talking with them about what we're trying to do and what they want, to discuss issues, to build support for programs and disburse information. She suggested the APB meet once a year with the Sierra Club in Chapel Hill to gain voting support for future bonds related to environmental issues. She said by the end of this year we ought to have met with our citizens and other groups to come up with a plan for an agricultural resource center and have a budget prepared by December 2003. The next big thing she asked for the board to do is to find creative ways to securely change tobacco farms. Mandell said that in talking to people, while making the film, they said that when you make this switch it is a big gamble. So there must be some kind of insurance we (the APB /County) can finance so that when someone starts on a new venture they won't loose everything because it doesn't work the first year. We should be able to come up with an insurance policy that covers farmers when they are making this new start. Mandell reported that she talked with Phil Gottwals and gathered information on what other farmers are doing. In some areas they are forming stock companies where the farmers agree to supply a certain item - -then they control the sale of that item. Or we could have organic stock companies of farmers and buyers. Then, under the secure changeover she suggested a business incubator proposal. Gottwals told her about other communities that are demonstrating to the public the quality of locally grown produce. She said there is a term called "fitonutrient" which means that if you gather a green tomato you don't get the nutrient food value you get if you wait for the tomato to ripen on the vine. This fitonutrient concept changes the whole notion of importing products from other areas, and makes locally grown foods very valuable. Mandell said she would like for grant funds to be applied for, for Orange County to develop a similar program; this year, and to begin plans on a local organic processing plant as others have discussed. Since Orange County is in the middle of the state it is an ideal location, and our area strongly supports organic farming. As we have such huge markets as the North Carolina Zoo and Southern States that sell animal foods that come from other states, we could open up another approach if we could figure out those needs and see if our farmers would take on those chores. For farm preservation, I would like to create strong arguments for the County Commissioners for the necessity of increased annual funds for the purchase of development rights and farm preservation because of the rapid DRAFT survey loss of farmland of the past few years. We to and have a st ong argument of the county for the huge local markets we have and of the economic benefits for farm preservation. our is and f gu e out how millions of dollars. Our overall goal should be how prove to get this done. suggested looking at ways to make farming profitable and that what Morrow Use value taxation is we're talking about is ways to keep farmers farming. important. We should try to extend the use category to further help farmers continue to farm — not just having it as one general tax break to but pub ritizi d to ng it b For example, if farming in a certain zone is more you ought have a the farmers than farming in the middle of Hillsborough, y special category linking that special tax district to the size of the area that is p agricultural district, that district preserved. For example if we had a voluntary ag than one that ought to receive a higher prioritybe strati ied so th t the moregand you have is not. The tax incentives could er number t are contiguous in an agricultural district, or the grThat str t gy would encoaurage close to each other, the taxation decreases to get a 7% rate farmers next door to each other to group together in a xdlmple, that the greatest instead of 10% tax rate. Walters added for another concentration of farmers in tobacco and produce the are le Grove, tobacco and has the lowest rate of sep tic tank approval. So if y want to stay on the farm, the poor (development) soils might encourage farmers nt where the soils to stay n agriculture compared to the other areas ofi housesy Mandell asked Y are more likely to perc making it easier to develop with Warren noted that the if we have a map that shows suitable soils in the county. of suitable soils. Morrow added that if Farm Service Agency as a working map you have an area of predominately good soils then fahat could be a priority area. Members discussed crop alternatives for tobacco Morrow suggested an idea of tying the golden leaf founddate to a d the i'dea ifferent �rop. an insurance program for tobacco oTrust Fund was set up to do this and you can Kleese noted that the T apply as an organization to be a pass through--taking el them money ans t fro the Mandell said organization and giving it to the fthereras a loop hole if they don't make it; like what she's is proposing is being Kleese said the Gold leaf flood or crop insurance, not giving out money. program is more community oriented andd L nd Link Trust Fund is more asked direct to the farmer. Members discussed about the idea of purchase of development a purchasde of development discussions with a family in that general area about rights program and to date the differential in value e of the more ense to velopment and hasn't really been worth them pursuing it. It m out on a lot of if the land value will increase. Morrow added that e miss When you look at programs because the county in general is prosperous. hink we Orange County its just a small segment that's evelopment zone id altong 185 ought to suggest that the land use plan have through Hillsborough, have a development guidQlVVners on development in that guide the planning board and citizens and land DRAFT M zone. Carve out of whatever land plan we're doing, the rural area elements and try to make those a bit separate so that they're not all tied in together. On the areas that are likely to get development, we've got one set of rules and concentrations that we're working on but we have a different kind of emphasis for the more rural two - thirds of Orange County. We start with the land plan and actually designate those areas as urban transition and then rural. Then we can take the economic development issues that go along with rural versus urban things and focus some things on how do we promote prosperity principally for farmers in the rural area. Then our rural 2/3 of Orange County might quality for some of these programs that we don't qualify for when you blend it all together economically. Gordon that brings up the idea mentioned by Mandell of the rural buffer areas particularly around Chapel Hill and Carrboro becoming built out. He asked if there had been any consideration of the rural buffer area around the 1 -85 and 1 -40 corridor or around Hillsborough. Stancil said that several years ago there was an effort for a cooperative plan with the Town of Hillsborough where there was a designated growth area not called a rural buffer but something kin to that. The idea was proposed, but it didn't go anywhere. I don't know if the new land use committee has delve into that but it may be that some of the land use pattern ideas reflect that type of approach. Gordon said that basically anything within the ETJ is going to get developed and anything outside the ETJ is the county's purview. Stancil said that in Hillsborough's case what is more critical is the fifty -year sewer service area. That's the area where Hillsborough projected they could provide water and sewer over the next time frame of the study. Morrow said that might be a good way to start defining where a transfer of development rights or purchase of development rights program might be concentrated - -where you've got a likely difference between values. So if we had zone within the water and sewer service area that was prime agricultural land, a working farm would really be worth a lot on the PDR program. Kleese asked to keep it on the table that in some way the highest quality soils be preserved for farms not only the land that won't perc for development. Stancil suggested trying to keep in mind the Lands Legacy Program and the Ranking System. Both programs strike a balance between prime farmland and threatened farmland giving them equal weight in terms of the value -- farmland that is in close proximity to an urban area with high development potential and some of the best productive farmland in the more rural areas. Ranells noted that we need to focus on promoting a stewardship ethnic in support of farmers and we need to provide options. Morrow said if we could tie the estate planning issues more directly to the alternatives we're trying to develop, like transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights. That would offer options for estate planning for a farm where the economic value is going to be divided between heirs. The toolbox of options would provide ways to transfer value to the children while still preserving farms. Gordon added that estate taxes on inheritance is now down to the third year, unless they vote to extend the program it's going to go back to the full estate taxes. The potential status change adds a level of uncertainty and makes it difficult to do estate planning. What we have to do is to give value in some way other than relief from estate tax. Mandell suggested using the Land Link idea to help find people to lease land with productive soils and meet the market DRAFT M needs. Kleese concluded that to preserve farming you've got to have farmers and land. It may be helpful to group these suggestions into two categories, farmer profitability recruitment and farmland preservation. Recor suggested getting the schools involved. Let's suggest that school curriculums teach students the importance of agriculture in our county and that one of their options is to be a farmer. Warren explained that the Future Farmers of America program in Orange High School is an educational program where school children are exposed to farming. Mandell said we should convince the Commissioners that it's time to budget the money to do the agricultural resources center. Warren suggested coming up with a packet of materials to give to Dave Gibbs and the Cedar Ridge FFA program coordinator describing land stewardship and farmland preservation to be included in their lesson plans. The idea of having an Agricultural Day in the schools was discussed as it is done in Person County-. Guest Dickinson reported he has a program set up at his farm to show school children farming activities through hands -on activities. Morrow suggested that the Blackwood Farm become the focal point for an agricultural center and farmers market rolled into one, where Northern Orange and Southern Orange can come together and understand each other. He also suggested finagling this project out of the school merger. A joint building that both school systems support and a working farm site that brings all this together including an environmental awareness component. Recor suggested including the School Board as part of the APB's outreach project. Warren said that all the schools have an element of environmental education and we need to give them the idea that farmers are environmental advocates too. It's all part of the environment, nature controlled and nature uncontrolled to the benefit of all people. Johnson noted that the Farmers Market had just received federal money and might be interested in getting something going. Warren suggested instead of spending that money on architects and designers why not organize a shelter building - pole barn type shelter like farmers use. Ranells brought up the voluntary agricultural districts program and the need to reevaluate the criteria for agricultural districts that balances the availability of land. He also suggested that we look at what other counties are doing for VADs and compare their thresholds are for agricultural districts. Kleese opened the issue of a bona fide farm and what qualifies a farm. Warren suggested continuing to use the state's definition although it's not a good one but it is one that everyone accepts and you can work from it. Guest Dickinson talked about the problems facing the modern small farm. He said the definition is so limiting. There was no definition for a farm for a hundred years. The definition got made up when people wanted to protect themselves from the dangers associated with the new types of farms such as agri- business farms. Prior to agri- business a farm couldn't exist without it's relationship to a community. That was a definition of a farm, a community and a farmer all working together. The state's definition of a farm has no relationship to a farm and it's community that supports it. As an example, if the public comes onto a farm, it's not a farm. Members continued discussing the interpretation of the DRAFT bona fide farm definition as it relates to present use value taxation and VADs. Kleese wrapped up noting that we recognize there are problems with it. Kleese divided the discussion topics into three main issues: preserving land, recruiting /preserving farmers, and defining farms within the context of legislation and tax laws, etc. Ranells added another category-- helping to establish favorable policies, tax structures, and advocates. Ranells offered information from Vermont — a governor sponsored proposal that all land and farm buildings be exempt from tax. If we establish linkages with groups that are pro open space, there is an opportunity to get other people speaking on behalf of us. Warren offered the members with the possible perception of the farmers in the county of this avenue. Roberts suggested the APB come back to the charge of the people we are representing and the charge from the Board of County Commissioners. Ranells said that if there are groups out there who are willing to partner with us to get things into place that are beneficial to farmers we should look at those options. Morrow said if we come from the economic benefit to farming, then groups could unite to benefit our cause. For example, the Sierra Club has interests in watershed protection and the Cane Creek Watershed is a priority zone for us. We promote certain taxation benefits within watersheds for people that preserve farms. The two groups can support each other. But approach preservation through regulations - -if we want to zone somebody's land so they can't use it for farming or sell it, then we're coming from a different point of view than farming. We'd be coming from prevention of growth and development, which is not necessarily in the interest of a farmer or landowner. Warren added that farmers don't always see environmentalists as being their friends, they tend to view environmentalists through the associated regulations and prohibitions that have been placed on them through environmental laws. Kleese duly noted that real change happens through collation building and we can work together towards creating positive change leading to win /win situations for all parties. Recor suggested that the APB begin making contacts and trying to build collations. Ranells suggested meeting with the other agricultural agencies to set our focus. Mandell suggested getting these four groups together and meeting with the farmers. Warren suggested the initial contact be made through the Cattlemen's Association; the next meeting is April 1St. Walters suggested finding a model farm and discussing that farmer's long range plan. Stancil said that there are a couple things that we haven't talked about that are on the list and staff will add these in and have them for you at the next meeting. Staff will take at first cut at categorizing the list and the APB can rearrange the items at the next meeting. Strategies for Farm and Farmland Preservation and the Land Use Plan were listed as follows: Create Farm /Farmland Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (based on the Historic Preservation Element model) • Develop Preservation strategies that focus on profitability & survival • Raise the Agriculture Profile DRAFT 6 AM t,"4t • Develop Stock Companies • Construct an Organic Processing Plant (Seed, etc) • Raise $ for Development Rights -- Preservation • Extend the Use Value Taxation Program • Identify Agricultural Priority (areas) • Link to size of area (VAD) • Contiguous Ag Districts = • Provide Economic Incentives • (Lower Use Value rate) (Cedar Grove land perc) • Cut taxes for new ventures • Consider an insurance program for diversifying Tobacco Farmers • Use Cedar Grove — pilot project for a Land Link • Apply for Golden Leaf funds to provide crop insurance • Apply for Tobacco Trust Fund monies • Create development zones with special guidelines in Central Orange County, carve out the rural areas and provide different guidelines based on agricultural development • Qualify for additional programs (legislation changes) • Promote TDR/PDR - Focus sending areas on sections of the county with prime soils and receiving areas to sections of the county with public services • Expand Joint Planning efforts to include Hillsborough • Provide information regarding estate planning options — Tie to Development rights • Promote stewardship ethic vs. less interest in future generations • Give value in another way (TDR,PDR) • Obtain funding for PDR, and for Land Link program • Develop farm preservation programs and farm training programs • • Offer scholarships Encourage local schools to include agricultural topics including the importance of farming in their study plans /curriculum • Develop agricultural -based educational program — allow town kids an opportunity/ Ag Day in schools • Build agricultural resource center (Pole Barn) • Target Blackwood Farm as the Focal Point/Central Point for agricultural resource /educational center • Include Schools (and School Board) in outreach efforts • Voluntary Agricultural Districts — reevaluate balance of threatened vs. critical mass • Reexamine the definition of Bona fide Farm • Explore related themes • Preserve Land • Pursue innovative schemes for profitability • Define Farms /Establishing & Advocate Legislation • Develop collations with multiple interest groups -- Conservationists, and Economic Organizations b. Review of Membership /Attendance Issues Kleese asked for discussion of membership and joint meetings with other agencies. Stancil reported that there are seven current at -large members and Voluntary Agriculture District representative slots. C. Review of Historic Preservation Element format d. Joint Meetings with other Advisory Boards /Quarterly Agricultural Agencies breakfast Stancil brought up an idea, discussed at a previous meeting, to have a quarterly breakfast with some of the different farm - related agencies. Members agreed that outreach should be the first discussion topic. The first meeting should focus on getting to know the other staff members. The next meeting(s) DRAFT HE can include interested members of the community. Staff to write a letter from this board inviting the other agencies to the breakfast. Staff to poll the APB members with possible breakfast dates based on the chair's schedule. Groups to include: COOP, Farm Service Agency, S &W Conservation, NCRS, Commissioners, EDC, Mike Lanier. Members discussed a Hillsborough location for the event such as the Village Diner or Kelsey's Cafe. Anticipated breakfast time - -8: 00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn by Warren, seconded by Ranells. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DRAFT 112 .13 Attachment 1 PROPOSED UNC STUDENT PROJECT "AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE AND HISTORY" Staffs from the ERCD and Recreation and Parks have met to discuss a proposal received from the UNC APPLES program (Assisting People in Planning Learning Experiences in Service). A freshman English class is interested in exploring the County's historical perspective from an agricultural standpoint, visiting with community residents and learning about farm practices from previous generations. This might include deed research at some of the County's new park sites with farm traditions (Cate, Blackwood), oral histories and other research. More details on the project will be developed in the next few months. The project would tentatively be conducted in the fall of 2003. Ideas on contacts, areas of emphasis or other subjects are farming and farm history. welcome. The results of this effort might be incorporated into festivals, books and future initiatives related to ----------------------------------------------------- APPLES is a student - sponsored program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that engages students, faculty, and other community partners in service- learning partnerships that address social concerns and needs of North Carolina communities. APPLES Service Learning: I . Places students at the forefront of an active education through experience and reflection. 2. Links classroom learning and community work. J. Advances UNC- Chapel Hill's commitment to teaching, research, and service. 4. Serves as professional development for student organizers and participants. II ct 1,Y rALOrange County Agricultural Preservation Board Memorandum To: Board of County Commissioners From: Agricultural Preservation Board Date: May 21, 2003 Subject: Land Use Element Update Copies: CPLUC Planning Board Planning Staff Farmland is an irreplaceable physical, cultural, and economic asset in Orange County. The Board of Commissioners has long recognized the importance of farmland preservation and created the Agricultural Preservation Board in 1992 to ensure that the vitality of farming and agricultural activities continue to make Orange County a unique and desirable place to live. The Agricultural Preservation Board supports the following land use tools for farmland preservation and encourages their inclusion in the planned update to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: ➢ Agricultural Priority Areas • The Agricultural Preservation Board has been working over the last several months to identify Agricultural Priority Areas as part of the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program (VFPP) Ordinance. These Areas would identify "communities" of existing agricultural activity, threatened farmlands and prime soils, based on mapping of farmlands (ongoing). These Areas also will provide a basis for coordinating Voluntary Agricultural Districts and helping to denote key areas for future agricultural conservation easements through Lands Legacy. The APB would like to share these ideas, once completed later this spring with the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board for possible incorporation into the Land Use Element. • Once identified and mapped, the APB would propose that County land use policies serve to direct development away from Agricultural Priority Areas using a right -to- farm approach. Ideally, the location of existing farms would be discussed during the development review process for proposed subdivisions and special use permits to limit future nuisance complaints. Disclosure statements would be required on all deeds and land records management systems for newly developed properties within one half mile of pre- existing farms. • While the existing Voluntary Agricultural District program is (as required in the State and local VFPP Ordinance) a separate program, additional benefits from VA District participation could dovetail into land use planning and other programs. Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board Page 2 ➢ Promote Incentive -Based Strategies to Preserve Farmland • Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) • Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE) ➢ Augment Agricultural Infrastructure • Facilitate value -added opportunities for local farmers such as roadside stands, and cooperative ventures such as community farmers' markets. • Provide central locations for community and /or regional processing facilities as recommended by local farm agencies, and agricultural advisory boards. 17 Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, Environment & Resource Conservation Director Date: May 12, 2003 Re: Agricultural Priority Areas and the VFPP Ordinance As the Board may recall, discussion of designating agricultural priority areas was one of our prime topics in 2001 -02. A bit of background may be useful in this vein. The adoption of new criteria for prioritizing agricultural lands (via Lands Legacy) came as a request from the Board of Commissioners when Lands Legacy was adopted, to modify the LESA -based model that was originally proposed. Accordingly, in March 2001, the APB adopted a set of criteria, after several months of discussion, that balanced the interests of protecting prime farmland with that of threatened farmland in areas of greater development pressures. From that time we set out on the next step — identifying geographically where the priority farmlands were. But before that was possible, a significant undertaking in its own right was needed ... a project often discussed but never accomplished ... the actual mapping of existing farm fields. After months of discussion and the diligent assistance of the USDA Farm Services Agency and the NRCS /Soil and Water District, a draft of the fields map was presented in late 2002. During the same timeframe, another impetus for this mapping was recognized — that needed updates to the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program (VFPP) Ordinance should perhaps be built around agricultural sectors or districts, and that the agricultural priority areas mapping might also yield this result for the Voluntary Agricultural Districts program. Now, in the spring of 2003, we face somewhat of a "chicken- and -egg" syndrome. In order to update the VFPP Ordinance, we need to complete the designation of Agricultural Priority Areas. In order to designate Agricultural Priority Areas, we need to see where the farm fields are to determine patterns of farm activity. However, because of impending turnover in the Farm Services Agency office, we are faced with several months of work to further refine and categorize the farm fields mapping as planned into types of use (animal operations, tobacco, grains, grasses, etc). I believe this upcoming delay provides an opportunity for us to step back and reassess how to move forward. The fundamental decision is whether we have sufficient is information on which to designate agricultural priority areas and move forward with the VFPP Ordinance updates, or whether we should wait on further mapping opportunities to continue this work. It is my recommendation that we use the information that we have gathered to date (substantially more than has existed before) to move matters forward. While it would be ideal to refine the map and have farmlands broken down into categories of activity for this action, I do not think it is a necessary precursor in order to designate where the agricultural priority areas are. To designate these areas it is important to know where the activity centers are, and where the fields are — but not absolutely necessary to know what type of farming is done on these fields. The agricultural priority areas were envisioned to be geographical in nature, and not based on type of farm activity. Therefore, I would like to pose the following steps for the APB's consideration: a. Staff maps all of the farm fields as identified by USDA (FSA), and augments these with information on other fields (or refinements of existing fields) from the MRCS /Soil and Water District staff (May -June 2003) b. The farm areas are identified and combined into a draft set of "districts" (June 2003) c. The APB discusses and refines these districts to be used as the basis for revisions to the VFPP Ordinance - districts within which participating farms exist (June, August 2003) d. These districts, along with other proposed changes to the VFPP Ordinance, are considered and recommended by the APB (September 2003) e. The proposed revisions are presented to the Board of Commissioners (October 2003) It would be preferable, in my mind, to have all of the pieces related to farming activity in place prior to moving forward. However, at this time, with a lengthy process behind us and several additional months potentially ahead of us, I think this course may be the one that best gets the needed updates on their way. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 1 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS APB AGENDA May 21, 2003 M CD O N N J a a 0 LO Q Z J 0. Q U_ Z .J J w Q U_ QQJ ' J 2 w d LLJQ- V h PAGE 4 I MILLION SOLAR. ROOFS Architect leads. wa3 l g� ff c y energy efficiency BY MARTY MANDELL — which is the centerpiece of AND SUSAN LUSTER its sustainable design strategy -- provides natural light for Million Solar Roofs Committee two - thirds of the daylight.hours, "No country on Earth has a and reduces the installed cool - serious, comprehensive, sustain- able, energy program, and the sit- '." ing equipment by more than 100, tons. Daylighting -in schools uation is deteriorating rapidly means energy savings, and . — Denis Hayes, founder of Earth Day tests show it creates a superior Many people in Orange Coun- learning environment in which attendance improves and .' ty think solar is the solution to grades the world's energy problems; Nicicklas has a degree in Mike 1V ld which is in direct contrast to architecture from N.C. State the majority of U.S. citizens, who think the continued pursuit University, is a founder of the N.C. Solar Energy Association,' ' of petroleum products is OK.. } We e part of a statewide ar and past president of the Amer - W movement toward the use of ican Solar Energy Society and the International Solar Energy alternative, renewable fuels Society. He headed the solar ' that has, over the past two decades, made North Carolina a section of the United Nations' national leader in solar energy Rio Conference in 1992 and gave a report on the conference This growth in solar is large- ly due to the influence and pro- in Carrboro to a group of s' ductivity of architect Mike elected officials from Oral Nicklas and his firm, Innovative Chatham and Alamance coup- ties. It is sad to report that his Design in-Raleigh, whose focus is on energy- efficient, environ- issues of sustainability areas; mentally sensitive design. That true today as they were 11 means environmentally friendly years ago: 111 Societal costs of energy building materials, passive . solar heating and cooling, pho -. consumption — erosion of land, tovoltaics, natural daylighting loss of agriculture, health and solar domestic hot water impacts. ■ Resource availability = and space - heating systems. Since 1977, they have . depletion of nonrenewables. designed 650 solar buildings, ■ Pollution of land, air, water more than any other architec- -- climate change. tural firm in the world. They've renovated 34 schools using ■ Balance of trade - one - fifth of the world's financial ' solar and energy improve - wens, saving 250 million kilo- transactions are related to oil. m Population growth — the watt -hours of electricity, and Third World has cheap coal for _ their nine new daylit school industrialization (and pollution designs saved 24 million kwhs. These schools averaged 10 per, like the West). ■ Discrepancy of wealth - cent below budget, and saved starving people don't care about $2.5 million in energy bills each 'renewable, energy; 2 billion . year, plus a reduction in carbon have no electricity. The U.S., with'5 percent of ` dioxide and oil imports. In addition, their design for the world's population, is Smith Middle School in Chapel responsible for 25 percent of Hill has eight hot water collec- global warming. Wouldn't it be tors that provide a third of the wonderful for us to stop t- school's hot water needs,. and an ing and become the first underground cistern to collect try to adopt a sustainable ener- roof rainwater for flushing toi- gy program? . lets and irrigating an adjacent You can reach Marty Mandell at 967 athletic field (with,a connection 9646 and Susan Luster at ncsea@mind to city water in case of drought, spring.com. Innovative Design is like last year). reachable a The .,;ehool's davliahting plan innovativedesign @mindspring .corn farmland preservation report Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space Since 1990 • Deborah Bowers. Editor MARYLAND LEGISLATION & BUDGET Law to cut lot rights La on farms preserved ANNAPOLIS, MD — After a decade of failed attempts to more tightly restrict the number of new homes allowable on preserved farms, Mary- land legislators approved changes recommended by a task force to cut that number from 10 to a maximum of three.. BB 805, sponsored by Delegate Mary Dulany- James, will allow one lot for farms of 20 to 70 acres, two lots for farms of 70 to 120 acres, and three lots for farms of 120 acres or greater. Under old rules, up to 10 lots for chil- dren were allowed by request, but enforcing the family restriction was at best impractical, accord- Rural Legacy funding stashed, p. 5 ing to local administrators. Lot exclusions prior to easement sale, an equally thorny issue for the Maryland Agricul- Continued on page 4 LIMN COUNTY. IA "Reverse LESA" scores building sites CEDAR RAPIDS, IA — In Linn County, which surrounds the city of Cedar Rapids in eastern Iowa, county officials treat development propos- als like many localities treat agricultural land — they give it a LESA score. Many localities seeking to protect farmland from development turn to the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment formula devised by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in the early 1980s. The scoring system, which rated such aspects as soil quality and proximity to sewer hook -up, offered an objective approach to deter- mining which lands were most important to protect. But Linn County Director of Planning and Development Les Beck "turned LESA on its head," to use it as part of the county's Rural Land Use Plan and Interim Development Ordi- nance in July 2002. The ordinance states that a proposed development must receive a minimum threshold score on the LESA system as the initial requirement for development approval. A differ- Continued on page 2 Volume 13, Number 6 April 2003 High land values sustain interest in IPAs ................. 3 Conference examines compensatory options .............. 6 Newsbriefs .................................. ............................... 6 Jobpostings ................................. ............................... 8 Farmland Preservation Report is published by Bowers Publishing, Inc. 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $205 includes index and hotline services. Editorial and circulation offices: 900 La Grange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 • (410) 692 -2708 • bowerspub @hotmail.com • ISSN: 1050 -6373. @ 2003 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of this material without permission is prohibited. Page 2 farmland preservation report April 2003 Conlinued from page I ent LESA scoring model was developed for each of three zones - urban service, rural residential and agricultural. In each model, one of the aspects measured is the percent of area zoned agricultural within 1/4 mile of the proposed development tract. A tract must score at or above a threshold score. Points are awarded differently in each of the three zones. Beck presented his LESA model to an enthu- siastic audience at the recent "Farming on the Edge" conference in Pacific Grove, Ca., spon- sored by the American Farmland Trust. Audience queries kept Beck for more than 10 minutes following the session's stop time. Farmland protection and smart growth are the guiding principles of Linn's land use plan, but private property rights figured heavily in develop- ing an implementation scheme that would sit well with property rights advocates, Beck said. LESA fit the bill. "It's very objective. The goal is to punch a button and get a point score," Beck said. The county's agricultural zoning allows one residential unit per 35 acres, "but in the past it wasn't hard to get zoning changed for develop- ment purposes." Beck said the LESA scorings allow staff to provide objective recommendations to elected officials on development proposals. Under old policies, the county board agreed with staff just 44 percent of the time when staff recommended denial of a project. "Since adoption of our new land use plan and development ordinance, which includes LESA, we've had 100% concurrence between stag, P &Z, and the board on all decisions. Obviously it's still'early in the implementation process, but Continued on page 3 Option 1: "Development EnaMirKJ' 40 -- - — -- — - - -- - -- - - - --� E 30 W- N O 0 8 SACriterion: Ag Zoning 114 Mile Option 2: "Rural Protection" d 40 -- -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -� E w: 20 d o (n a 10 . m � � R m o o o 0 Op�p cS 0 h s d' N r 09 m to l'9 SACriterion: Ag Zoning 114 Mile Option 3: "Combined Approach" 40 - 30-- N r t 0 20 am °' 10 0 N N - . .. •.. O e O O O S 0p N O O dO ip 1- (0 to SA Criterion: Ag Zoning 114 Mile Source: Linn County Department of Planning Linn County "Reverse" LESA Models Option 1: Urban Service Area model: gives points readily for sites that have little ag zoning nearby; Option 2: Discourages nonfarm development, gives declining number of points with. higher percent of ag zoning nearby; Option 3: For the Rural Residential Development Areas, where points are withheld in the predominantly agricul- tural setting but are awarded fairly rapidly in more "suburban" surroundings. April 2003 farmland preservation report Page 3 Continued from page 2 the results so far are very encouraging and reflect the value of LESA in making objective, fair and consistent decisions," Beck said. To establish the threshold scores for develop- ment approval, GIS modeling was created that closely approximated the proposed LESA sys- tem. All parcels in the county were then modeled based on the appropriate scoring option and the results were statistically analyzed, Beck said. The threshold scores for each plan area were established based on this statistical analysis and on the estimated acres in each plan area that would meet or exceed the proposed threshold score, Beck explained Beck worked with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors to estab- lishing the threshold scores using mapping demonstrations showing the spatial distribution of parcels and the number of acres meeting the threshold scores. The results were then compared to the land use plan's projected number of acres needed to meet growth needs over the next 20 years. This analysis provided the basis for establishing the threshold LESA scores for each plan area. The public process and analysis "should provide the county with.a defensible basis for the establishment of those thresholds," Beck said. Originally devised by Lloyd Wright of the Soil Conservation Service as a soil classification system for Orange County, NY, the LESA system was expanded for the U. S.D.A. in 1981. Ten years later a study estimated that about 212 local and state governments had devised LESA systems. About 69 percent of those found were actively used, 30 percent were under construction, and the remaining either abandoned or inactive. Most local purchase of development rights programs use some form of LESA system to prioritize properties to determine which are to be offered limited easement funds. Points are as- signed for such factors as extent of development in the area, zoning, proximity to sewer, proximity to preserved lands, size of farm, soil quality, product sales, and, usually to a4esser degree, historic, scenic or environmental qualities. Contact: Les.Beck@linncounty.org, and Lloyd Wright at LEW52841@aol.com. VIRGINIA BEACH High land values sustain interest in IPAs VIRGINIA BEACH, VA — Despite land prices that go as high as $29,000 per acre, landowners in Virginia Beach's agricultural reserve find the city's installment purchase agreements (IPAs) still attractive enough to compete with development. Fourteen properties now being appraised could add 750 acres to the program's current 6,000 acres of permanently protected farmland. According to program manager Melvin Atkinson, the program's semi -annual tax free interest payments of 5.17 percent, and agree- ments to pay as high as 95 percent of fair market value keep applicants coming, even in a tight land market. The most city council has paid was $17,100 _ per acre on a property having a per acre fair market value of $18,100. Paying high on the fair market value scale is necessary in a high -priced market, Atkinson said. The program has a formula, although somewhat arbitrary, for determining easement value. "We subtract agricultural value at $900 per acre. If we get arguments on both sides regarding the formula, we figure we're in the ballpark." According to installment purchase expert Daniel P. O'Connell of Evergreen Capital Advi- sors, Inc., high land values and installment purchase agreements go together. "When land prices are high, farmers typically Continued on page 4 Page 4 farmland preservation report April 2003 Vrginia Beach, continued from page 3 have unusually large capital gains. Because IPAs allow farmers to defer the taxes on those gains, IPAs are much more financially attractive than cash payments for easements," O'Connell said. The Virginia Beach program is funded by a dedicated portion of real property tax that gener- ates $3.5 million annually. Contact: Melvin Atkinson, 757 426 -5775; Pat O'Connell: pat@evergreenca.com. Maryland cuts lot rights, exclusions Continued from page I tural Land Preservation Foundation, which receives requests from landowners for lot exclu- sions prior to easement sale as well as for child lots after easement sale, will also have new rules. Currently, applicants can request lot exclusions at the discretion of the Foundation, which had no formal guidelines to follow for these requests. Under new rules, program applicants must decide whether to have one unrestricted lot excluded from the easement property, or, to reserve the right to request the family lot or lots at a later date. Currently, applicants could do both. The law takes effect Oct. 1. Allowable economic activity on preserved farms will -also be expanded under HB 805. In other legislation, the Foundation has been authorized to set guidelines for easement rankings under HB 804. An effort to reduce acreage requirements for easement sale from 50 to 25 died in committee. HB 827, which set down guidelines for an installment purchase program that doesn't exist, was withdrawn by its Harford County sponsors. According to Douglas Wilson, director of admin- istrative services for the Department of Agricul- ture, installment purchases need to be examined Continued on page ' etcetera .... U.S. Senate approves tax breaks for conservation in charities bill WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Senate passed conservation tax incentives April 9 as part of a bill to aid charities. According to the Land Trust Alliance, S 476, referred to as the CARE bill, could have far - reaching impact on conservation activities. The bill includes four tax breaks for land protection efforts— one for landowners who donate conservation easements, one for landowners who sell their land to a conservation organization, one allowing nonprofits to use tax -exempt bonds for conservation of forests, and one exempting conservation grants from the U.S. Department of Interior's Partners in wildlife Program from taxation. The bill will need to be approved by the House of Representatives before it becomes law. Land Trust Alliance (LTA) President Rand �,'entwortlizaid the new tax benefits will . "dramatically increase the number of landowners who will choose to conserve their land." Section 106 of the CARE package allows landowners who donate a permanent conservation easement to a nonprofit organization or government agency to deduct the value of their gift over 16 years rather than the six years previously permitted. The bill also increases the amount that can be deducted in any one year from the current 30 percent of the donor's income to 50 percent, with provisions allowing farmers and ranchers to deduct all of their income under certain circumstances. The deduction cannot exceed the gift's appraised value. Under present law, landowners who donated a conservation easement were limited to deducting just 30 percent of their adjusted gross income in any year, for a maximum of six years. That meant if a landowner earned $50,000 annually — rather typical for America's farmers and ranchers — and donated an easement worth $1 million, the landowner could only deduct $ 15,000 in any year, up to a maximum Of $90,000. "The law needed to be changed to give a fair incentive to people giving extraordinary donations that were worth many times their annual income," stressed LTA Public Policy Director Russ Shay. "It only makes sense to allow ranchers, farmers and April 2003 farmland preservation report Page 5 other middle income landowners to get an incentive in proportion to the value of their gift, rather than to the size of their income." Section 107 of the CARE bill would cut capital gains tax by 25 percent on sales of land or of conservation easements to a conservation charity or government agency. It is modeled on the 50 percent exclusion proposed by President Bush in his budget. Section 108 of the CARE bill would exclude from taxation grants to landowners from the Department of Interior's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, which shares in the cost of improving wildlife habitat on private lands. The managers' amendment to the bill also included a provision setting up a pilot program under which up to $2 billion in tax - exempt bonds could be issued by nonprofit organizations to purchase land for conservation, with the bonds repaid by renewable resource use on the land. Entrepreneurial agriculture the focus for NY, PA regional effort OWEGO, NY — The Southern Tier East Regional Planning Development Boa: d in Tioga County, NY. and partners in Pennsylvania and New York are examining the feasibility of a shared -use commercial kitchen to help farmers and other entrepreneurs develop value -added products from their crops or suppliers. According to John Hoover of Yellow Wood Associates, a consulting firm in St. Albans, VT, the space and equipment could also be used for training in food safety, marketing and small business development. The effort is seen as a way to revitalize rural areas threatened by a decline in farming and a rise in sprawl. Yellow Wood, serving as facilitator of the project, conducted a survey of potential users in the I I -county study region, including farmers' market vendors, farm markets, roadside stands and others. Enterprise agriculture is getting a lot of atten- tion in other places, including Loudoun County, Va., which has a four - person staff looking at ways to boost ag in a metro county, and in Michigan, where the Michigan Land Use Institute heads up the New Entrepreneurial Agriculture Project. It will sponsor a statewide conference, "Seeds of Prosperity: Food, Farms and Michigan's Economic Future," in November. For information on the conference see the Institute's website at mlui.org. Continued from page 4 by the task force, and the bill was premature. "We testified it was a good idea, but on the state side of the ledger it needs work. There's a difference between installment payments and IPAs." Wilson said MALPF funds will soon consist only of bond money, and IPAs cannot be financed with bond proceeds. Maryland budgets $22 million in bond funds for MALPF, protects transfer tax dedication Looking for ways to cut the state's deficit, fiscal analysts advised that the state's real estate . transfer tax revenues, the primary source of funds for land preservation, be permanently channeled to the general fund, but Maryland legislators said no. And, in another move that buoyed the spirits of conservationists, legislators chalked up a 50 percent return of those revenues in fiscal year `05, up from zero. All transfer tax revenues were cut from the `04 budget. While MALPF will hold its own in funding levels with $21.9 million, the Rural Legacy Program will barely survive the state's fiscal crisis, with $5 million in bond funds, down from $21.3 million, the land program hardest hit by cuts, along with its Glendening -era partner, Green Prints. Current Rural Legacy applicants are asking for $95.4 million for easements. Adding to anxiety in Annapolis, the legisla- ture ended its session without resolving the state's budget crisis and refused to approve slot machines as a means to do so, much to the dismay of Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich. As a result, Ehrlich has indicated more cuts will come. "There's still a big concern because of the hole in the budget," said Grant Dehart, policy analyst for the Department of Natural Resources. "It's considerably better in `05 ... if you're opti- mistic they'll leave [the money] there." Program Open Space could be a big target considering the alternative -cuts to education or social programs, officials say. So far, POS has been hit with a 22.6 percent loss from `03. Page 6 farmland preservation report April 2003 Compensation issues, new Nevus briefs... ideas, focus of California In Maryland ••. For legislative and conference budget news, see story, page 1. Howard County has lured Joy Levy as its new farmland preservation ' SACRAMENTO, CA - "These are exciting ideas that have a lot of administrator, filling the vacancy currency," said Larry Libby of Ohio State University, summing up a left by Jeff Everett last November. two -day workshop convened by the University of California's Levy was most recently a project manager with the state's Rural Agricultural Issues Center, April 14 -15. The conference addressed Legacy Program prior to that she compensatory options for agricultural easement programs. managed the Queen Anne's County Conference chair Alvin D. Sokolow, policy specialist for coop- farmland preservation program for erative extension at UC Davis, said the invitational brought together four years. "1'm very excited and about 80 people in farmland preservation, all but 20 from California. glad to be back at the county level," About 12 experts from eastern states were asked to present she said. Even though the Rural Legacy papers on issues and techniques, and a number of California farmers proms wfli l have just $5 million and ranchers related experiences with easement negotiations. to award to $95.4 million in requests, the program will use its Public - private tradeoffs in buying easements normal procedure to make awards in the current round, according to Public- private tradeoffs in paying landowners to retire develop- program director Pam Bush. ment potential was addressed in ati.early session. The requests come from 21 Patricia Norris, an associate professor in agricultural economics existing Rural Legacy Areas and and resource development at Michigan State University said she and four applicants asking for new area a colleague were examining how to target farmland for preservation designations in Carroll, Calvert, St. Mary's and Frederick Counties. The in urbanizing states. Public support of farmland protection could be program, in operation since 1998, put to the test when criteria for selection of farms includes "aspects had recent funding levels of vulnerable to change," such as acceptable farm operations. For between $21 and $29 million. example, converting open land to greenhouses, is "not going to be In California ... The Assembly what people had in mind as farmland and open space protection." Budget Subcommittee has placed the annual $39 million in J. Dixon Esseks, emeritus professor of public administration at .. Williamson Act subventions on a Northern Illinois University, made the case for large lot zoning to list of programs it wants restored in protect agriculture, as opposed to huge public investment in ease - the governor's budget. The ments. His research is "about quantifying land conservation" in terms of "user beneficiaries." He said large lot zoning "unfortunately Williamson Act reimburses counties for property tax breaks for farmland under development pays for itself." restrictions of at least 10 years. The "We can frame the question even if we can't place a dollar value program protects 15 million acres. on a supposed benefit," Esseks said. The more recent Farmland Security Ted Feitshans, who teaches agricultural and environmental law Zone program, which provides at North Carolina State University, said that in a state in which half additional benefits for longer term of counties have no comprehensive plans, "use value assessment is restrictions, is now protecting 564,700 acres in 14 counties. an underrated benefit," that helps to protect farmland. At the same In Pennsylvania... HB 671 would time, such.laws can be abused by developers, as was recently head - make optional to counties a lined in a state newspaper, he said. reduction from 50 to 25 acres the eligible size of a farm for easement Continued on page 7 sale. HB 668 would change April 2003 farmland preservation report Page 7 Growing Greener funds from Term easements temporary to permanent at $20 "What impressed me most [during the conference] was the need million annually. The finding `04- ;, for less - than - perpetuity easements, said Erik Vink, assistant director source is due to sunset in the '05 budget year. HB 667 is the of the California Department of Conservation. "We have a leg up in $150 million bond bill that was California with the Williamson Act," he said. passed last year in the House and Anita Zurbrugg, assistant director of the American Farmland got hung up in the Senate. It could Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment, said the advent of move later this month. less than perpetuity easements will depend on state enabling laws, SB 924, in the Senate Finance Committee, would reduce state future challenges to perpetual easements, and valuation and tax inheritance tax to one dollar ($1) treatment that will be devised for term easements. Most states per acre. Currently, inheritance is "establish a default favoring perpetual easements," Zurbrugg said, taxed at 4.5% of the value of the "but a few others limit the duration of easements unless specifically assets when passed on to direct spelled out as perpetual in the easement." descendents. In New Jersey... The governor Tom Daniels, professor of planning at the State University of wants to keep farmland preserva- New York, said several federal conservation programs allow 30 -year tion bond funding at the $SO easements. As a consultant, Daniels wrote a 10 -year easement million funding level, but the program for the Town of Southampton on Long Island. Daniels also legislature isn't so sure. June 3o is noted that some states allow landowners to seek easement termina- the budget deadline. The bond funding is highly coveted as the tion after 25 years, reached in Maryland this year (see March, FPR). state deals with a $5 billion deficit Vink and others at.the conference noted that in some circum- in a $23 billion budget, stances term easements could help reluctant landowners enter into In Kentucky... The program was deed restrictions that could later become a permanent easement. given authority this'month to make offers on 36 properties and has L.andpooling about $6 million. In Michigan ... The state is David Renkert, founder of Landpool Administrators, LLC, making progress in transferring described a European concept he has been developing for private farmland preservation to localities, sector use within the United States. Initiated by landowners, tracts of with counties either with land are assembled to create a unified regional development plan that ms or working on establish- programs a ing them: But money is hard to includes ecological and watershed elements. come by, with just $1.5 million In an investment and finance arrangement, private property available. "It will probably be a owners, usually adjacent, determine what type of development will while before we have another occur, and what areas will be conserved. Individuals, companies, cycle," said program manager trusts and pension funds can invest in the venture. Landpools are Rich Harlow. Patricia Norris of Michigan businesses in which landowners and investors act as members on a State University, said targeting corporate board of directors. money in Michigan "is tantamount "What we are doing is delineating an area and turning it into a because of highly varying land business," Renkert said. The areas are secured with options and values" going as high as $20,000 rights of first refusal. Renkert said the technique is a way to end an acre. The state is trying to get out uncertain about the future of an urban fringe area and to integrate uncertainty g gr of the farmland preservation :.• . _ conservation planning with environmentally sound development on a business and get localities into it,"- regional scale. Norris said. "Well designed landpools will promote the protection of natural resources and habitats in their entirety with a long term view to financially capitalizing on their protection," he said. . Contacts: Patricia Norris, 517 353 -7856; Tom Daniels, 518 442 -4469; David Renkert, 206 200 -8009, info @landpooling.com. Page 8 farmland preservation report JOB POSTINGS Teton Regional Land Trust 110), Stewardship Director- The Teton Regional Land Trust, a local, non -profit land protection organization working in the Upper Snake River Valley of eastern Idaho, is seeking a Stewardship Director. This is a principal staff member who coordinates stewardship of approximately 70 conservation properties, oversees restoration efforts on selected lands, directs development of educational programs, participates in conservation planning for the entire service area, and helps the land protection program team strategize accomplishment of the organization s conservation mission. Salary: DOE. Benefits: SIMPLE IRA, Health Insurance, Paid Time Off. Announcement will close on May 31. Top candidates will be interviewed thoroughly, with ideal placement as early in the summer as possible. For more information: www tetonlandtrust orglpin lob openinas.htm. Send cover letter, resume, and references to: Michael Whitfield, Executive Director, P.O. Box 247, Driggs, ID 83422, 208 - 354-8939. (posted 4117X3) Columbia Land Conservancy (NY), SentorProject Manager- The Columbia Land Conservancy is seeking a full -time senior project manager to undertake a variety of land transactions. Duties: Cultivate, negotiate, draft and manage conservation easements; establish public conservation areas; fundraise for related conservation projects; and provide direct service to landowner and community groups by assisting in the evaluation and implementation of various conservation strategies. Qualifications: BS or BA in environmental studies, natural or resource sciences, landscape architecture, agriculture, forestry, or experience in a related field. Considerable conservation easement drafting and management experience is also required. Experience in land transactions, including the purchase and sale of land, and GIS and GPS skills are desirable. Salary: Commensurate with experience. Benefits: Medical, dental, retirement plan; paid vacation, holidays, and sick leave. Send cover letter and resume to Judy Anderson, Executive Director, P.O. Box 289, Chatham NY 10237 or JudyOcictrust.oru. For a complete job description, contact Emily Warrington at 518-392 -5252 or Emilv@cictrust.org. (posted V1403) The Trust for Public Land (DC), Field office Director- TPL's Chesapeake Field Office based in Washington D.C. seeks an energetic, team- oriented leader to shape, manage and lead all aspects of its Chesapeake program, including strategic planning, marketing, land conservation transactions, fundraising, and staff supervision and training. Requirements: Minimum 5.8 years' progressively responsible and related project/land trust experience; demonstrated track record of high level performance and creativity; excellent communication and organizational skills; proven ability to negotiate successful transactions; knowledge of non -profit fund raising techniques and commitment to land preservation issues. EOE. For more information: www.tol.ora. To apply, please send letter/resume to: The Trust for Public Land, 666 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10012; or fax: 212 - 353 -2052. (posted 3/2&V3) CONFERENCES May 29, Laurel, MD — 'Keeping Maryland Beautiful -- Tools for Protecting Community Character" sponsored by Scenic Maryland. To be held at the Wildlife Patuxent Refuge Visitors' Center. Topics include designing community - friendly highways, taming the cell tower, banning billboard blight, and preserving the look of the land. Keynote speaker: Edward T. McMahon, VP, The Conservation Fund. Cost: $40. For more information, see www seenicmaryland.org, or contact Shelley Mastran at: shellmast @aol.com or 703 - 707 -0982. Nov. 11 -13, Thompsonville, MI - "Seeds of Prosperity: Food, Farms, and Michigan's Economic Future' sponsored by the Michigan Land Use Institute's New Entrepreneurial Agriculture Project and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to be held at the Crystal Mountain Resort. Focus: How Michigan can save farmland by building a new entrepreneurial agriculture industry. Contact MLUI at 231 882 -0723 or seeds @mlui.org. See wwww.mlui_org. April 2003 COPYRIGHT NOTICE It is unlawful to reproduce this publication and distrib- ute it to other locations or agencies. If you have a spe- cial need, please contact the publisher. Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! Can't find it on the web? Need a quick answer for an -update? Want to get smart for that up- coming presentation? Call or email us. We're faster, friend- lier and smarter than the web! When you have news ^- or views — give us a call. We're always eager to hear from you and to provide additional in- formation to help you get up to speed with the nation's best- informed farmland preservation professionals ... FPR subscribers! Welcome! Phone 410 692 -2708 Fax 410 692 -9741 E -Mail bowerspub @hotmail.com - Address Bowers Publishing, Inc. 900 LaGrange Rd. Street, MD 21154