HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 041603COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: David Stancil, ERC Director
Date: April 9, 2003
Re: April 16th Meeting
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
w
� <�"
�,' � '
�.
�k
Time P, age
7:30
7:35
7:36 02
7:40
10
14
8:00
8:50
AGENDA
April 16, 2003
Planning and Agricultural Center
Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM
1. CALL TO ORDER/ INTRODUCTIONS
2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — (March 19)
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
a. Strategies for Farmland Preservation (continued from March)
b. Updates to APB Portion of ERCD Web Site
c. Proposed Agricultural Boards Breakfast
5. ITEMS FOR DECISION
6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. "Farmland Preservation Report"
b. Info from American Farmland Trust
of
W
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
0
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
loss of farmland of the past few years. We need to create a convincing survey
of the county for the huge local markets we have and have a strong argument
of the economic benefits for farm preservation. Our time is short and we need
millions of dollars. Our overall goal should be how to prove and figure out how
to get this done.
Morrow suggested looking at ways to make farming profitable and that what
we're talking about is ways to keep farmers farming. Use value taxation is
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 but prioritizing it.
For example, if farming in a certain zone is more valuable to the public and to
the farmers than farming in the middle of Hillsborough, you ought have a
special category linking that special tax district to the size of the area that is
preserved. For example if we had a voluntary agricultural district, that district
ought to receive a higher priority for special use taxation category than one that
is not. The tax incentives could be stratified so that the more land you have
contiguous in an agricultural district, or the greater number of farms that are
close to each other, the taxation decreases. That strategy would encourage
farmers next door to each other to group together in a district to get a 7% rate
instead of 10% tax rate. Walters added for another example, that the greatest
concentration of farmers in tobacco and produce is in Cedar Grove, which also
has the lowest rate of septic tank approval. So if they are leaving tobacco and
want to stay on the farm, the poor (development) soils might encourage farmers
to stay in agriculture compared to the other areas of the County where the soils
are more likely to perc making it easier to develop with houses. Mandell asked
if we have a map that shows suitable soils in the county. Warren noted that the
Farm Service Agency as a working map of suitable soils. Morrow added that if
you have an area of predominately good soils then that could be a priority area.
Members discussed crop alternatives for tobacco farming.
Morrow suggested an idea of tying the golden leaf foundation into the idea of
an insurance program for tobacco farmers that want to divert to a different crop.
Kleese noted that the Tobacco Trust Fund was set up to do this and you can
apply as an organization to be a pass through -- taking money from the
organization and giving it to the farmer to help them in transitions. Mandell said
what she's is proposing is being there as a loop hole if they don't make it, like
flood or crop insurance, not giving out money. Kleese said the Gold leaf
program is more community oriented and the Tobacco Trust Fund is more
direct to the farmer. Members discussed Land Link ideas. Mandell asked
about the idea of purchase of development rights. Stancil added that
discussions with a family in that general area about a purchase of development
rights program and to date the differential in value of the development rights
hasn't really been worth them pursuing it. It made more sense to wait and see
if the land value will increase. Morrow added that we miss out on a lot of
programs because the county in general is prosperous. When you look at
Orange County it's just a small segment that's in that urban zone. I think we
ought to suggest that the land use plan have a development zone along 1 -85
through Hillsborough, have a development guideline, a booklet or whatever to
guide the planning board and citizens and land owners on development in that
DRAFT
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
4
b
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
7
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
C"6*
• 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 (TOR,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
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
14
Z
0
H
a
ce
w
Ln
w
w
CL
Z
OTC
LL
G
0
N.
w
H
W
L
c�
GC
C
O
2
rn
ro
0
rn
c
ru
..O
Q)
�N
•L
O
0)
a)
r6
u
ro
O
u
V)
L
LL
C
W
d
y
'C
C
J
4
c
W a)
J
c
O
O
N LLJ
Ln
rB
Z o
Q
V
o
En (a
L
Q
a c
o
¢
o
0
��
a
>ru
co
io
ca
rru Ln
i
U_
a)
U �O
=3
L
O
.�
L
O
Q
E ,=
a)
rn
L
Q
N
'Ln
L
LL O
0
"O
4- a-°)
fu Ln
4-J
Y
�
U
a) �
a) fu
U n
a
C
U
c
Z
m
O
O-
O
C
rn
d1
r6
E
C
E
4=
>
O
C
C
T
0)
O
O
a
O
v-
O
L
O
4J
1O
4O
-O
U
j
Q
a)
a)
�
L
Ln
O
O
o
++
o
a)
O
L
O
�
O
O
LL
'EaMa)
��
��c�
CL
o
W
f
U
X
U
c
C
>
n"
f6
L
r0 >
O
U
L
Q)
. �?
C
a�
O
a)
Q OL
"O
V
(]
rB
a)
u
L�
O
r0
O
c�
.N
L
4
r1)
'O
fo
+�+
U) V)
o
o>
ca
o-0
E c cr
o
a)
c
0
L7
0
I-
c�i
a
W
n
o
'+° .c
c
a)
o
L `�
o u
o
c
:
z)
a)
v- E
o a
°
�
a) o
� c
a1
o O
L
o
;
�_
•>
a)
ry
4
.O
4 -
7
a)
a)
u
-
>
>
4
>
L
.-
•-
fo
Mo0UWa
-iU0ao
a
CM
U°
Q�Q
.-i
N
M
d'
Ln
l0
n
00
m
C)
r-i
,r
Nr-r
m
U+-)
�r-�
W
N
16
11
N
U�
[a oZ�
Q
C
W
to
�
m O
O
F,
C t0
L
° O
Z
y —
uj
4-d f6 O
C
fu
L
J
W
O
Q �
uj
C O G CL
v N is O
O
C fl
Z0
4, -p >
Q
o
Q
U 0) rn-0
L�
L
O-0
v-
W co
N
�
N � O
r° m U
O O
C p
O
U O
(O
�r
a
LP. 0
j--
Q)
a)
C2 :3
U O v
O
C
0 )
tB
a._, iJ [On
N
U
{- O f
N
O
C
E N
O V)
C C O
HO
j
� LO
0
O p
O
N
V U ,'-C_-'
i
a W
d w
O
O C
4 V)
U E O1 U C C C
_N
y
E •� ru N-- � Q U C V _ •E
N O O O O v 4� O [a O w p
W N O v _0 C C O Q M O O
U v
C E C C O ca ±�
L 0
•N
cr
Ol O O O i- O E V)
O C)
Q Q U [Q (a a) V) 4-J 4--1
O E •C L_ p C
�
O L � O (D O U �i 0
O
N C U U C O O Ol cD j V) M
O V) `�
''J V) � U 4- M
L N p
a� L u fa
v c' � :3 o p vi
L p Q L m ++ p C C
'a
L C—
Q) 41 C N 0 U O ca O Ov O
p
C: a) t ;
Cl t! I LA
E
N V) 'C O M .O O d- �' O L -O C
_ O N C N
U ._ C L O U L N � N N "a ro a--+ O L [6 O f6
•L ` O
L
D O� N x 0 0 (a 0 N C O
C)C�f- U� O �W C] alO
Q(Y O W.��M CL
N
N
N
N
Ln
N
cD
N
f�
N
00
N
N
C)
M
M
N
M
M
M
I-
M
M
M
M
M
12
Z
W
W
.J
W
W
D
Z
4.3
Q)
s
o
L
d-a ra
40 C
co
M C
y—, E
O
N O
N
U U
>
C
f6
U
(�
c �O
L
4�
i--1
4-J Ln
fu C:
4-J tn
ru
L dp
M 44'J
>
�
C O
U)
.a) C
>
T
0
> C
C) [O
in
CO
Q
FB
Q
d-J
U)
W
C
vi
>
O
U
++
F
m
N
a
Ln
a
° o
�u
4La
L
4 N
U
O
.
•L
O ate+
a
a�
OC)
m
o
F
co
M
d"
d'
12
13
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board Page 1 of 1 14
Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board
The Agricultural Preservation Board supports measures and incentives that will lead to the continued
and future viability of farming, as well as farmland preservation in Orange County. The goals of rural
preservation, which encompass the conservation of prime farmland, scenic vistas of the agricultural
landscape, the family farm tradition, and the economic viability of agriculture in Orange County, would
be served by keeping farming a viable enterprise.
The Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board rneets the third Wednesday of every month at
7.30 PM at the Planning and Agriculture Center, 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough.
For more information, contact Tina Moon, Land Use and Preservation Planner
(919) 732 -8181, extension 2583
email: cmoo L&o.orange.nc.us
To learn more about the Agricultural Preservation Board, please click here.
Other topics of interest:
• Agriculture in Or nage County
• Voluntary Agricultural District Program.
• Agricultural Trends
• The Future of Farmland in Orange County
Go to the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department Page
http : / /www.co.orange.ne.us /ercd/apb /default.htm 4/9/2003
agricultural Districts Advisory Board Background
Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board
Background I Members
Background
Page 1 of 3
The Agricultural Preservation Board (APB) is an advisory board of citizens appointed by the Board
of County Commissioners. The APB was created in 1987, and charged with advising the Board of
County Commissioners on issues affecting the agricultural. economy of Orange County. Based on
recommendations from a 1981 agricultural task force report To Preserve Our Farms, APB drafted a
local farmland preservation ordinance that would establish voluntary agricultural districts. The first
voluntary agricultural district was designated by the Board of County Commissioners in 1992.
Since the designation of the initial district, 2,894 acres have been certified as qualifying farmland,
and six farms totaling 1,670 acres have completed all prerequisites for official voluntary
agricultural district designation.
In recent years, the Agricultural Preservation Board has focused on a more comprehensive
approach to farmland preservation. They held a public forum with representatives of the Ar ericann
Farmland Trust and the Agricultural Reserve Board of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and organized a
series of staff training workshops involving County planning and agriculture staff in the use of
voluntary conservation easements as a means of farmland preservation through estate planning.
APB is currently studying, along with other advisory boards, a Land Resource Acquisistion
Program for the County.
In January 1998, APB and the Soil and Water Conservation District Board conducted an
agricultural survey of all county farmers, agriculturists, and farming- related businesses. The survey
helped identify the most critical needs and issues of the agricultural community.
In February 1999, the APB participated in the first Agricultural Summit. Over 100 participants
from all sectors of Orange County agriculture Beard presentations by farmers who have successfully
diversified their operations, as well as presentations in organic production, land use taxation, farm
conservation strategies, and an overview of the recently announced tobacco industry settlement and
establishment of trust funds to help tobacco growers and communities.
The APB will enter the year 2000 by addressing agriculture and economic development issues, and
working with the Land Resource Acquisition Program to identify the most important farmland
areas for preservation. Also, the APB will continue its involvement in forthcoming Agricultural
Summits, working with farmers, citizens and elected officials to build a new consensus for
farmland preservation.
http: / /www.co.orange.ne.us /ercd /apb/board.htm 4/9/2003
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board Background Page 2 of 3
2003 Meeting Schedule
January 15
No July Meeting
February 19
August 20
March 19
September 17
April 16
October 15
May 21
November 19
June 18
December 17
All meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. in the Planning & Agriculture Center at 306 Revere Road,
Hillsborough
Board Members
�— Member
Address
9512 Greenfield Rd.
Tony Kleese (Chair)
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
4123 St. Mary's Rd
D n Johnson
Hillsborough, NC 27278
218 Hillerest Circle
Whit Morrow
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
116 Pine Street
Marty Mandell
Carrboro, NC 27510
4122 Buckhorn Rd.
FNbah Ranells (Vice- Chair)
Efland, NC 27243
202 N. Frazier Rd.
Rodney Recor.
Mebane, NC 27302
8909 Old NC 86
kiinberly Roberts
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
2103 New Hope Church Rd.
[Robert Strayhorn
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
8623 Harmony Church Rd.
Louise Tate
Efland, NC 27243
7119 High Rock Road
Elizabeth Walters
Efland, NC 27243
http:// www. co. orange.ne.us /cred/apbiboard.htm 4/9/2003
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board Background
17
Box 1252
NC 27278
Back to Agricultural Preservation Board page
httv://www.co.orange.nc.us/ercdJapb/board.htm
Page 3 of 3
4/9/2003
W16
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
APB AGENDA
April 16, 2003
19
�i
0
far miand preservation
ort Covering the policies, practices and initiatives
that save farmland and open space
Since 1990 • Deborah Bowers Editor
Diverse group attends two -day event
PACIFIC GROVE, CA - About 316 people
attended a conference sponsored by the Ameri-
can Farmland Trust, March 10 - 12, at the
Asilomar Conference Grounds nestled among the
dunes at the tip of the Monterey Peninsula.
Attendees included not only program admin-
istrators and professionals involved in farmland
preservation, but elected officials and farmers and
ranchers.
Attendees had more than 30 workshops to
choose from during the two and half day event,
MARYLAND AT 25 -YEAR MARK
as well as a number of keynote and plenary
sessions in rustic style lodges and halls scattered
throughout the wooded 107 -acre campus oper-
ated by California State Parks.
Keynote speakers included former Deputy
Secretary of Agriculture and Californian Richard
Rominger, who gave an account of problems
facing. California agriculture. His list included a
budget crisis that threatens the continuation of
reimbursements to counties for tax breaks to
Continued on page 3
Buy -back, escape clauses vary by state
ANNAPOLIS, MD - Two Maryland lawmakers
submitted and then withdrew legislation that
would have allowed counties to opt out of
current regulations that allow landowners to buy
back development rights that were sold 25 years
ago to the Maryland Agricultural Lands Preser-
vation Foundation.
Under BB 826, counties would have been
authorized to negotiate with landowners to delete
a provision in MALPF easements that allows
landowners'to seek permission to buy back
development rights if the easement was settled at
least 25 years ago.
Under current law, landowners have to
convince their local governing body that their
land can no longer be farmed profitably. If ap-
proved by the locality, the request would also
Continued on page 2
Volume 13, Number 5 March 2003
Local farm viability program ......... ............................... 4
Like -Kind exchange, installment purchase detailed ..... 5
Riverboat casinos keep PDR program afloat ................ 6
Jobpostings ................................. ............................... 7
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.
2 I Pape 2 farmland preservation report March 2003
STATE EASEMENTS
Termination either
tough or impossible
Continued from page 1
have to be approved by the MALPF board, state
secretary and state treasurer. If final approval is
reached, the landowner would pay for an ap-
praisal ordered by the Foundation, and would be
able to pay "the difference between the fair
market value and the agricultural value of the
land," or, the easement value.
If the request for termination is denied,
landowners under current law must wait five
years before requesting again.
The NMPF board is facing requests for
termination of easements in high growth areas.
Pennsylvania, Delaware share 25 -year clauses
Two other states allow landowners a way out
of their easements after 25 years. In Pennsylvania
"there's a stipulation that if a farmer for some
particular reason at 25 years or more decides he
can't farm any longer, he can ask to be let out of
the easement," said Wayne Grube of the state
Farmland Preservation Bureau.
Grube said the program, created in 1989, has
not yet established regulations for the provision.
"The only reason it would be considered is if
development has surrounded the farm. But even
then, you still could do vegetables."
In Delaware, an easement can be terminated
after 25 years "if a farmer can prove to the
Foundation's satisfaction no one can farm that
land anymore," said program communications
director Cathy Mesick.
The program's first easements were com-
pleted in 1996. Beginning in 2021, if any ease-
ments are allowed to be terminated, "the Founda-
tion would get the development value," in cash,
she said.
State program `buy -back' status
Allow buy -back after 25 years
Maryland Pay current easement value
Delaware Pay current development value
Pennsylvania No regulations
Extreme case escape clause
Kentucky Must petition circuit court
Connecticut Escape /eminent domain only
Mass. Extreme case escape clause
Ohio Escape /eminent domain only
No provision
New Jersey
Rhode Island
source: Interviews with program administrators, Feb. 03, and
regulatory documents
"Designed to be rare or never"
In Kentucky, where just over 10,000 acres
have been enrolled in a program that just com-
pleted its second round of applications, landown-
ers "must petition circuit court and show farming
is not viable, that it's surrounded by develop-
ment," said program manager Brent Frazier. "If
they are convinced, you can buy out by paying
back, plus interest, or you can have appraisals -
the court decides."
In Ohio, another program just underway in
the last few years, an extinquishment clause "is
designed to be between rare and never" that a
farm could be bought back for development, said
program director Howard Wise.
If an eminent domain situation were to take a
farm or part of it, Wise said. In any case, "we
would in effect get the development value.
There's no monetary gain for someone wanting
to come in and develop."
"Very cumbersome and involved..."
Connecticut's program takes a tough stance
on the permanance of its ag program easements.
Continued on page 3
March 2003
Continued from page 2
farmland preservation report
A minor escape clause would allow an eminent
domain proceeding for a public necessity such as
a road or bridge.
But even the state's Department of Transpor-
tation steers away from preserved farms as a
matter of policy, said Steve Revinczki, assistant
program manager.
"It's very cumbersome and involved. It's not
for the farmer, but for the public. We've never
gone through the process."
The statutory procedure requires legislative
approval and compensation to the program at
today's value.
"The goal is to not release anything - only in
the most extreme circumstance. There are so
many reasons people would want to get out, and
different motivations," Revinczki said.
AFT CONFERENCE
"A few problems"
facing California
agriculture
Continued from page 1
farmers in exchange for development restriction;
cuts also to University of California agricultural
research and extension, of 20 and 30 percent -
respectively; and rising costs to farmers for big
ticket items such as energy and workers' com-
pensation; and worse, the scarcity of water and
the uncertainty of water allocations; and finally,
the larger problems of population growth and the
competition for land.
After a brief pause, Rominger garnered some
laughter by adding, "these are just a few of the
problems facing California agriculture."
Rominger then enumerated the opportunities
for agriculture, through the 2002 farm bill. Some
of the new programs under the farm bill could
Page 3
hold much promise for farmers who take advan-
tage of them, he said, including the Conservation
Security Program.
Stark contrasts are common when comparing
eastern agriculture with that of the west, but
perhaps the greatest contrast is in water availabil-
ity. While farmers in the east can rely, usually, on
rain, and always on plentiful ground water for
irrigation, California farmers depend on state
water allocations and water that comes from far
away.
Water allocations affect preservation decisions
A session led by AFT senior vice president
Ed Thompson Jr. examined how California
agriculture might be affected by state water
policies and growth in urban areas.
Only 30 percent of water in California is
ground water. Most water is taken from reser-
voirs and rivers, and all water is controlled by a
state agency - there is no fee simple right to
water in and states, including California.
Thompson said that agricultural conservation
easements in California, particularly for croplands
in the Central Valley, are often preempted by
operator concerns about the future of water
supplies.
"If you address farmland preservation in
California, you must also address the water
issue."
Thompson said the AFT hired water policy
expert Marc Reisner six years ago to study the
Mink between water supply and farmland loss, and
to examine the potential of using water rights as
an incentive for conservation easements.
"Can we link the security of water to farm-
land easements - use it as a currency to protect
the best farmland..." Thompson said.
Reisner concluded water availability was a
serious a threat to California's farmland along
with rapid population growth and development
pressure.
One scenario in the water - for - easement
Continued on page 4
22
23
Page 4
AFT CONFERENCE
farmland preservation report
Loudoun pairs PDR
with local farm
viability program
Continued from page 3
concept was to provide water -cost and reliability
incentives in exchange for 20 to 40 -year ease-
ments. For example, a 40 -year protection agree-
ment would net water supply at a 50 percent
discount and a guarantee of delivery even during
drought.
AFT released the Reisner white paper in
1997, but Reisner's death a few years later
squelched the project's momentum, Thompson
said.
The problems of agriculture in high- growth
regions was highlighted in a session on Loudoun
County, Va. and the challenges it is facing as a
major attraction in the Washington, D.C. housing
market.
Loudoun County recently made waves by
downzoning a large part of its land area in an
attempt to save its remaining farmland. The
action removed 80,000 potential residential units
and put the county on the defensive against
scores of lawsuits seeking vested rights in build-
ing plans submitted.
Loudoun County's population has increased
by 48 percent since 1997 and is the second
fastest growing county in the nation. Nearly
6,000 residential building permits were issued in
2002, a 95 percent increase over 1997. The
county expects to build 25 new schools by 2008.
PDR paired with local farm viability program
Yet, Loudoun officials and residents began
devising. a farmland protection plan in 1999 that
included a purchase of development rights
program. A task force even talked about "a
thriving rural economy" that needed "a critical
mass of agricultural land_"
March 2003
Economic development for
agriculture, Loudoun County, Va.
Farm Viability Program
• County - funded grants to innovative ag
businesses
• Grants for infrastructure, $5 -28 k
• Grantee restricts development 5 -10 years
• Patterned after Massachusetts program
Other effbits, focus on ag
• Opportunity for "rural recapitalization"
• High value ag potential
• Access to new markets
• Provide targeted technical assistance
• Eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden
• Operate two farm tours annually .
• Operate five farmers markets
• Gave pleasure horses a tax break - "Your
pleasure horse is somebody else's business"
• Recruit appropriate new businesses
Loudoun is among the few localities to
establish, in tandem with purchase of develop-
ment rights, an agricultural economic develop-
ment program. It's four - person staff, headed by
Lou Nichols, administers the county's own Farm
Viability Program (FVP), possibly the only
locally- operated grants program for innovative ag
business plans.
Applicants to the FVP must own 20 acres,
have three years experience in farming, and
provide a 30 percent match. The grantee must
restrict development for five or 10 years. Grants
for infrastructure range from $5000 to $28,000.
Funded with $200,000 in county appropria-
tions, the program is patterned after the Massa-
chusetts program (see FPR, Feb. 2003).
Nichols said he dreams of creating a "Center
for Rural Innovation," a facility that would bring
together research and businesses, where lab
space and royalties would be shared.
Continued on page 5
March 2003
Continued from page 4
farmland preservation report
Nichols offered a motto for sustaining a
preservation effort: "It's the rural economy,
stupid."
Loudoun's purchase of development rights
program has approved 15 applications since Feb
2002, consisting of 3,134 acres of farmland and
open space, according to program director
Michael Kane. The acquisitions include eight
working farms and 1,400 acres of prime and
secondary soils.
The acquisitions commit $8.4 million - all the
county funds thus far allocated plus federal grants
- for an average of $2,684 per acre. All ease-
ments were acquired at 18 - 95 percent below
appraised value, Kane said, and 564 development
rights were retired.
Loudoun had 185,000 acres in farms in the
1997 USDA census, and $26 million in sales of
agricultural products, not including equine
production or activities, a sector not included in
census data. Loudoun's horse - related activities
figure high in its rural economy.
Loudoun's farmland preservation funds are
now spent, and its next purchases are unclear,
according to Kane. A hotel tax estimated to
generate $1.3 million this year could be a revenue
source if so designated, particularly after an air
and space museum at Dulles Airport opens next
year, an event that could triple annual hotel tax
revenues for the county.
Like -kind exchange, installments outlined
Tom Daniels, professor of planning at the
State University of New York (SUNS at Albany
paired up with Daniel Patrick O'Connell, presi-
dent of Evergreen Capital Advisors Inc. to
explain two ways easement sellers can leverage
easement funds.
Daniels, who formerly directed the Lancaster
County, Pa. program, said a landowner's chal-
lenges in easement sales include the capital gains
tax, concern about appreciation potential of their
land, family issues, and a perceived possible loss
of a retirement fund.
Page 5
"You need to offer landowners as many
payment options as possible," Daniels said.
One answer is the like -kind exchange, or a
1031 exchange, under Section 1031 of the
Internal Revenue code.
While in Lancaster, Daniels obtained a private
letter ruling from the IRS that confirmed a
conservation easement is an interest in real estate
"and hence is real estate." As such, an easement
is "like- kind" and payment for it can be used to
acquire other real estate.
If done through an intermediary, the seller
can defer capital gains tax. The seller can acquire
up to three properties in an exchange. Daniels
said some of the deals he helped to arrange
involved the purchases of additional farmland,
which were in turn preserved, and farmland
purchased again with the proceeds.
"Farmers can create a retirement income
stream, and facilitate farm transfer to the next
generation."
Landowners must use an intermediary,
usually an attorney, to handle a like -kind transac-
tion. The landowner has 45 days to identify the
property to be purchased, and 180 days to settle
on that property.
Daniels said he believed that at least 200 like -
kind exchanges involving easement proceeds had
been transacted, many of those in Pennsylvania.
One of the 40 or so attendees at the session said
they knew of like -kind exchanges using easement
funds that had occurred in California.
Daniel Patrick O'Connell described the
workings of the securitizable installment pur-
chase agreement, an easement purchase tech-
nique he first devised for Howard County, Md.,
which is now in use by a number of localities in
the mid- Atlantic.
O'Connell said easement sellers most likely to
benefit from accepting installment payments as
opposed to lump sum payments are those who
have thriving operations and are looking to
Continued on page 6
Page 6
farmland preservation report
Creative finance
focus: installments,
like -kind exchange
Continued from page 5
diversify their assets.
The installment purchase agreement is attrac-
tive to these farmers because it allows them to
defer payment of capital gains tax and to plan for
retirement and farm transferral.
Local governments make annual or semian-
nual interest payments to the landowner and
arrange to pay the principal in 20 or 30 years.
Funding for the interest payments can be from
general revenues or from a dedicated source.
Funding for payment of the principal can be
from unspecified future funds or from bonds
issued in the future, or, local governments can
purchase zero - coupon U.S. Treasury'-obligations.
(zeros). These are sold at steep discounts, cur-
rently about 20 cents on the dollar.
O'Connell said local governments that are
best able to administer installment purchases are
those that have large easement purchase pro-
grams and are paying high prices for easements.
Installment purchase programs require some
attention to detail - administrators must learn a
whole new way to do an easement purchase. The
Pennsylvania Farmland Preservation Bureau
recognized the need to help localities that wanted
to offer installment purchase agreements (IPAs)
to farmers. It developed a model IPA program
counties could access.
"The state said `we're going to climb the
learning curve for them, "' said O'Connell. To get
localities started, the Bureau, for a limited time,
covered the transaction costs ($18,000 to
$20,000) for installment purchase agreements. To
date, at least six Pennsylvania counties have used
IPAs. The program may once again cover trans-
action costs, according to director Mary Bender.
Installment purchase can boost a local preser-
March 2003
vation effort by offering tax advantages to ease-
ment sellers that developers cannot match, and,
the locality can increase purchases with the same
funding level.
Some of the major farmland preservation
programs that use installment purchases are
Howard, Harford and Anne Arundel Counties in
Maryland, Chester and Lancaster Counties in
Pennsylvania, and Burlington and Mercer Coun-
ties in New Jersey.
The City of Virginia Beach was also a pioneer
in using installment purchases for farmland
preservation. That program was rated by
Moody's investment service in 1996, assigning a
Aa rating to the program in an unusual focus for
the company. While the rating focused on Vir-
ginia Beach's ability to pay its obligations to
landowners, the opinion implied approval of the
installment purchase method for farmland preser-
vation. A similar rating was issued for Mercer
County, NJ.
Kane County (IL) PDR kept afloat by
riverboat casinos
"We want agriculture to be a permanent part
of our economy," said Kane County (IL) Board
Chairman Mike McCoy, leading a session on
community planning for agriculture.
The county set a goal to keep 50 percent of
its land area in farmland and open space, and at
first pursued the idea of purchasing farms out-
right and then leasing the land, but that idea was
stomped by farmers.
The county created a purchase of develop-
ment rights program in 2001, dedicating revenues
from two riverboat casinos to it. Revenues range
from $4 million "in a low year" to $12 million.
"The riverboats have been good for our
area," McCoy said. "Farmland preservation was a
goal in 1977, but not until the riverboats could
we pay for it."
Paying $5000 to $10,000 per acre, the county
has closed on seven farms, protecting 690 acres
Continued on page 7
March 2003
Continued from page 6
farmland preservation report
at a cost of $4 million. In process are six farms,
and 1,004 acres, costing $5 million. The program
has received 37 applications comprising 5,411
acres.
While Kane County is under assault from
growth pressures radiating out from the Chicago
region, its community planning efforts, coupled
with zoning, may have given it a fighting chance
to survive with agriculture intact.
In 1984 the county downzoned its agricul-
tural area - in the county's western half - to 1:40;
and takes planning seriously, McCoy said.
"We've taken our role in county government
to be regional planning... sometimes we butt
heads with municipalities, but that's a good
thing."
The county plan calls:for a greenbelt running
lengthwise through the county, dividing it east
from west. It's eastern portion contains most of
its 404,000 people, and is adjacent to Cook and
DuPage Counties. Towns include Elgin, Geneva
and Batavia. The Fox River runs along the
eastern edge through the towns.
"We want to maintain a greenbelt on the
western edge," McCoy said. "We don't want the
growth to go beyond us."
That growth has included nearly 35,000
residential building permits from 1990 to 2000,
90 percent of those issued in the county's 28
municipalities.
Leading PDR programs in study profiled
Alvin Sokolow, public policy specialist at the
University of California, and Anita Zurbrugg of
AFT's Center for Agriculture in the Environ-
ment, gave an update on a study that is underway
of 45 local and state farmland preservation
programs.
The session, "When are Easements Effec-
tive?" highlighted some programs examined in
the context of planning and zoning and other
aspects that will affect a program's ultimate
success. The study will be released this summer.
Page 7
professional resourceDD...
JOB POSTINGS
American Farmland Trust, Regional Director, Mid -
Atlantic Region — AFT seeks an experienced, energetic
leader and manager to head up a multi- faceted and
growing field operations presence in the Mid - Atlantic
region (Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware
and Virginia).
The Mid - Atlantic regional director oversees all
organizational activities within the region. Activities
include public education and outreach, research and
technical assistance in policy development, land projects,
membership development, fundraising and marketing
services. The director is responsible for coordinating,
developing and implementing a long -term plan and
strategy for organizational priorities, activities and growth
within the region; obtaining the necessary funds,
developing and managing workplans and budgets, and
hiring and supervising staff, consultants and/or interns in
order to achieve the objectives identified for the office.
The field director reports to the associate vice president
for field programs.
Minimum qualifications:
• MA or MS degree and 5 years of related work
experience with proven skills in project, personnel
and organizational management. A background and
experience in land use planning, agriculture, land
conservation or natural resource planning is desired.
• Demonstrated work plan and budget management
experience and skills.
• Demonstrated fundraising experience and skills.
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills.
Send cover letter, resume and writing sample to Robert
C. Wagner, AVP for field programs, 1 Short Street,
Northampton, Mass. 01060. Applications will be
accepted through April 1, 2003.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance (MD), Executive
Director - Seeking an Executive Director for the
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, a 36 member consortium
of organizations representing diverse interests working
cooperatively in Maryland and Delaware to conserve the
natural, cultural and recreational resources of the
Nanticoke River watershed. Successful candidate must
be skilled in all aspects_ of non - profit administration,
including grant writing, fundraising, budget development
and management. Applicants must demonstrate ability to
work closely with diverse constituencies (program
Continued on page 8
2 I�
t
,)7
Page 8
farmland preservation report
Continued from page 7
managers, students, volunteers, resource professionals, public) while
planning and implementing a variety of watershed protection and
restoration activities. Strong communication and organizational skills a
must. Salary range $30 -$40K, depending on experience. Applications
must be received by April 16. Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, P.O.Box
138, Nanticoke MD 21840; 410 - 873 -3045; FakA10- 873 -3073;
nanticokewatershed @juno.com. (posted 3/21/03)
The Trustees of Reservations (MA), Southeast Land Conservation
Program Assistant - Immediate opening for a full -time position located
in Canton, MA. Works under the supervision of Land Protection
Specialist assisting with a variety of conservation - related projects in the
Charles River Valley and southeastern Massachusetts. This is an
excellent entry level position with one of the oldest land conservation
groups in the nation. Duties include collecting data and preparing
documents, proposals, and reports. Some evening and occasional
weekend work. Salary based on skills and experience. Excellent benefits
package. Submit a cover letter, resume, two references, and salary
requirements to Southeast Land Conservation Program Assistant
Search, The Trustees of Reservations, 2468B Washington Street,
Canton, MA 02021. Fax: 781 - 8214027. No phone calls, please. For a
full job description, visit our website (www.thetrustees.org) or email
crodstrom(a)ttor.org. Open until filled. (posted 3114103)
Columbia Land Conservancy (NY), Senior Project 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 299, Chatham NY 10237 or JudX(ftIctrust.org. For a complete job
description, contact Emily Warrington at 518 - 392 -5252 or
Emily(ftIctrust.org_ (posted 3114103)
Scenic Hudson (NY), Land Stewardship Specialist - Scenic Hudson, a
39 year -old nonprofit environmental organization and separately
incorporated land trust, seeks a Land Stewardship Specialist. Under the
direction of the Executive Director- Scenic Hudson Land Trust, the Land
Stewardship Specialist will develop and implement natural resource -
based stewardship practices at Scenic Hudson s parks and preserves
and manage the annual monitoring of the organization s conservation
easements. The successful candidate will be energetic and
entrepreneurial, with at least two years previous professional experience
and a related degree. Full job description may be viewed at:
www.scenichudson.org. Letter of application, salary requirements and
resume to be forwarded to: HR, Scenic Hudson, One Civic Center Plaza,
Suite 200, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 or faxed to 845452 -7567 or e-
maited to tvanyo(a)scenichudson.o . Scenic Hudson is an EOE
promoting cultural diversity and excellence. (posted 3110103)
March 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.
Farinland Preservation
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 -r
410 692 -2708
-- Fax —
410 692 -9741
E -Mail
bowerspub @hotmail.com
Address
Bowers Publishing, Inc.
900 LaGrange Rd.
Street, MD 21154
Christina Moon - FW: 1NICFarmers Mkt. Bad News -Hot o press
From: "B Justice" <bjustice @farmland.org>
To: <bjustice @farmland.org>
Date: 4/8/03 4:44PM
Subject: FW: WIC Farmers Mkt. Bad News -Hot off the press
FW: W IC Farmers Mkt. Bad News -Hot off the pressDear Voluntary Agricultural
District Board Member:
In your efforts to support local agriculture, I thought you would be
interested in this information about cuts to the WIC Farmers Market program.
This program provides vouchers to mothers enrolled in the WIC program to
purchase fresh produce at local farmers markets. The farmers can exchange
these vouchers for cash.
You are receiving this note because:
1. You attended our Voluntary Agricultural Districts Training in February
(and we have your email address).
2. You're from a county that receives WIC vouchers at your local farmers
market.
3. You have a legislator on the appropriations committee, which will make
decisions about this funding.
We're suggesting you call your legislator this week to explain the value of
this program to your local farmers; let them know how many dollars it brings
in to their district! It's a great opportunity to link farms and public
health, as well.
Feel free to send this message along to anyone else you think might be
interested.
Gerry Cohn
Southeast Regional Director
American Farmland Trust
24 Court Square NW - Suite 203
Graham, NC 27253
tel: 336- 221 -0707
fax: 336- 221 -0280
email: gcohn @farmland.org
http: / /www.farmIand.org
MR
2001 Farmer's Market Nutrition Program
COUPON REDEMPTION BY MARKET
Market
Dollars
Market
Dollars
Alamance
3,678
Lee
7,299
Moore
7,305
Anson
4,500
Nash
8,805
Ashe
2,745
Onslow
38,793
Burke
4,092
Orange
Hillsborough
Carrboro
561
2,016
Cabarrus
13,326
Caldwell
13,452
Pas uotank
3,906
Catawba
3,927
Pitt
22,287
Chatham
Pittsboro
Fearrington
543
288
Robeson
SE Ag Center
County Mkt.
25,092
7,275
Rockingham
6,036
Columbus
6,927
Rutherford
6,099
Durham
8,091
Stanly
6,840
Edgecomb
5,670
Stokes
2,190
Surry
Elkin
Mt. Airy
543
4,173
Franklin
2,718
Gaston
24,138
Granville
5,445
Union
15,102
Guilford
Piedmont
Farmers City
60,447
10,530
Wake
- State mkt.
Fuquay Varina
79,503
81
Washington
2,994
Halifax/Nham ton
17,187
Watauga
3,168
Harnett
3,027
Wilkes
7,488
Haywood
Waynesville
Canton
3,771
558
Yancey
2,697
TOTAL
467,643
Total Authorized Markets
46
Iredell
Statesville
Evening M
10,890
1,431
Total Authorized Farmers
1119
FMNP 2001 Revised 4/17/02