Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 032101COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Agricultural Preservation Board From: ' Tina Moon, Preservation Planner Date: March 15, 2001 Re: March 21 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for: The focus of this meeting will be to begin to identify agricultural priority areas as the, basis for future preservation efforts. Staff will bring large maps showing prime soils and watershed protection areas, and APB members can evaluate various sections of the county. Once the most important agricultural areas are located, we can start to update and expand our existing protection toolkit to include some of the new ideas we have been discussing during the last few meetings. Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2597) by Tuesday, March 20 if you will be unable to attend. Copies: David Stancil, Environment & Resource Conservation Director Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist 9 AGENDA PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER Conference Room 306 Revere Road HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7:30 p.m. Time Page AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:31 02 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 31, February 21 7:35 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Agricultural Priority Areas 8:45 14 5. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Farm and Open Space Preservation Work Group: Final Report b. Farmland Preservation Report c. "Farmers head to Raleigh" d. Joint Meeting with Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission 9:00 6. ADJOURNMENT 2 Page 1 DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD January 31, 2001 PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Nancy Goodwin, Bob Strayhorn, Louise Tate, Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Rodney Recor, Noah Ranells, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, Preservation Planner Tina Moon, Administrative Assistant Carol Melton. Guests present: Bob Nutter ABSENT: Charles Thompson, Elizabeth Walters ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Chair Morrow. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA There were no additions noted. ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 20, 2000 MOTION: Kleese moved approval of the December 20, 2000 minutes. Seconded by Recor. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. APB Comments — Shaping Orange County's Future Provisional Report Morrow asked Stancil to guide the APB on what areas to focus on in the SOCF report. The idea is to provide feedback to the BOCC about the report and if is consistent with the goals of this board and the county for farmland preservation, and identify if there are gaps in the report. A template of typical questions followed by a consensus of how the group feels about the recommendations of the SOCF Task Force was suggested. Staff to pull together a report to the BOCC based on the answers from the APB to the following questions. • Does the SOCF report address and/or support goals of the Agricultural Preservation Board? Draft 1/31/2001 1 Page 2 • Does the APB agree or disagree with any relevant objectives or action strategies? • Are there any important gaps in subject matter or recommendations? • Does the APB have any thoughts on the difficulty or ease of implementing the recommendations? • Are there certain provisions or strategies from the report that you would recommend to the BOCC for action as highest priorities? Stancil noted that once the BOCC receives the comments from all the different boards, it will be discussed at their March 13th meeting followed by a April 19th Assembly of Governments meeting where all the different elected boards of the county will discuss the findings of the report. The Task Force will reconvene, make final changes based on comments received from advisory boards and elected boards and issue the final report after, that. Then it would be up to elected boards to use as they see fit in terms of amending policy. Morrow referred to the "companion document ", a short version of the SOCF report, and discussed items number three and four, Land Use Patterns that meet People's Needs while Protecting Natural Resources and Conserve Natural Areas, Farmland and Other Important Open Space. The possibility for an outline for developers that encourage different styles of building was suggested. Transfer of development rights (TDR) was explained and discussed. Stancil noted that a TDR occurs by purchasing developments rights in a rural area, then use that to increase the density in an urban area- added, for example- the Task Force report envisions the places that have been historically significant such as Caldwell, Schley, Cedar Grove. Carr, White Cross, have a provision of mixed of housing with non water /sewer, in keeping with the community character would be a way to enhance development in rural areas. Sending areas were described as any part of rural areas such as watershed or priority areas. Receiving areas were described as areas where there is water /sewer /roads. Identify areas that would be valuable to preserve open space and areas that are valuable for development might be an important tool. The idea of identifying a pattern for developers that encourages alternative development practices was noted. Having tools to transfer opportunities such as cluster developments and allow for flexibility was noted as important. The importance of having farmers who wish to participate in TDR's is eminent. Morrow stated that a TDR could help make land available and an important tool for accomplishing goal #4 of the SOCF report. Another useful item would be a list of farmland, forests, habitats, that assigns values for possible TDR's was discussed. Stancil noted that this is part of the Lands Legacy program. Criteria for evaluating farmland for conservation easement programs have been done. Draft 1/31/2001 2 4 Page 3 Agricultural priority areas need to be identified and could become a task for the APB. Kleese noted that there were only two places where farmland goals were mentioned in the report. Mandell said that an addendum to'the Economy Report of the SOCF task force was done however, very little is included in the final report: (this addendum to be sent to APB members). A concern was expressed that at first look of the report, it appeared that the only farming being conducted in the county is organic farming. Identifying farmland was agreed upon as critical, along with creating a .local network for local products. "Cost of Community Services Shared" were also noted as important. Stancil noted that a map is available that shows prime farmland mapped by using USDA soils information. Work is ongoing to digitize maps and aerial photos from the Farm Service Agency of production farms in Orange County. Other issues discussed included the Lands Legacy program and how the criteria of the point system addresses both threatened farmland closer to urban areas and prime farmland with best soils; the county's groundwater study, sustainability issues, cost of services analysis and what it might reveal. Stancil noted that Pam McIntosh, SOCF project manager has done a follow -up sustainability report that will be available soon. Staff to distribute the report to the APB after BOCC review. Once the two goals of identifying farmland and establishing a local network for local products is done, Kleese suggested that the next priority might be creating' a toolbox of things that helps to preserve prime farmland pieces while making it non - threatening to the farming rural community and simulating to real estate community. Secondary piece is to get local institutions that purchase food to begin process of purchasing of a percentage from local growers and stimulate the market through that. Once clear action statements are developed, there are clear guidelines and tools for everyone. A possible missing education element was noted by Ranells- the importance of agriculture in Orange County in schools; so that different age groups would be aware of that importance. The example of how recycling information shared in schools traveled into the home and people became aware and participation increased was given. Ranells suggested a goal that would raise awareness of farm issues and agricultural awareness in K -12. • Stancil pointed out on page 22 of Recommendation #1, Action Strategy #G: Establish partnerships between urban and rural residents through community support for local farming by: • Having farm tours for school children as well as adults; Draft 1/31/2001 5 Page 4 • Creating links with organizations that support farming; • Supporting marketing and consumption of local farm products; • Surveying local citizens' needs /desires for farm products. Strayhorn noted that some of these goals are being met through the Junior Livestock Shows, 4 -H Program, and that this year's show is number 56 where a community barbecue is held hosting over 400 people. A general overall statement such as "Everyone has to eat and drink and wants a good quality`of life was suggested. Agriculture has a direct impact on every person in the county and that these three things are fundamental to the pursuit of happiness for everyone" was suggested as being included After discussion, staff will draft the ideas from tonight's meeting, distribute in the agenda packet for the next meeting for final revision and adoption. b. Plan of Action -New Consensus for Farmland Stancil noted it is a possibility that this maybe postponed due to so many other things going on such as the proposed bond referendum, elements to comprehensive plan, Lands Legacy program and other things. A proposed "game- plan" was distributed and reviewed as a handout with objectives and times. The APB decided the time line was short for all the objectives. Kleese suggested a fall festival to stimulate people to come to the stakeholder group meetings. A discussion of the stakeholder groups to be invited to a kickoff meeting concluded noting that most every group is covered under the list. It was agreed that consumers should be added to group of Farm Supplies & Businesses. A member of the APB should sit in on each group at the meeting. A letter of invitation with explanation of stakeholder groups including a mission statement and short -time frame goals, emphasizing the importance of agricultural center. Stancil emphasized two distinct tasks of this goal, stakeholder group work and the work group that gets formed to develop preservation policy. The stakeholder groups to meet twice to identify key.issues of farmland preservation and discuss Ag Center. Limiting the discussion to those tasks will produce a blueprint for the future Work Group to use for developing a policy. Following that step, the group findings to be complied by the APB liaison and reported back to the APB followed by report to BOCC. After the BOCC reviews the stakeholder findings, they will appoint a short -term Work Group, comprised of APB members and Stakeholder participants, to develop guidelines for official County Farmland Preservation Policy document. This Work Group will have a starter list of topics for.research and could meet four times to complete the task. These guidelines then reported to the BOCC followed with the APB using the guidelines and Draft 1/31/2001 V Page 5 BOCC feedback to develop Farmland Preservation Policy document. A Consideration of folding it into the farmland preservation element of the comprehensive plan was suggested. The time frame is contingent upon getting BOCC approval of the invitation letter and list of stakeholders. If as the BOCC calendar for June is already filled it could possibly be August before this first step can move forward. The APB discussed the needs of the Agricultural Center, stakeholder groups, who should be included, the possibility of an opening event that everyone is invited to where PowerPoint presentation is given of the overall plans and ask for input and feedback on what people would like to see the Agricultural Center do. Recor suggested the title for the New Consensus for Farmland be called "Orange County Agricultural Center and Your Participation in the New Consensus For Farmland" Strayhorn noted that the agricultural center should house all the groups in one location such as Cooperative Extension, Farm Service Agency, USDA Rural Development (Farmer's Horne), Soil Conservation Service. In the old days when a farmer came into town to conduct farming business he would have to go all over town. Then the first agriculture center was built on King Street that housed all the divisions necessary. Then the county needed the building and moved the agriculture departments to the Revere Road location. The people that we expect to be in the agriculture center should be involved in the stake holder group meetings to talk about how it's going to look and the space necessary for these organizations to function and do the jobs they are expected to do. Discussion included the rural community's lack of interest to participate because they have heard these ideas for many years without any action being taken; if we can prove to the rural community that we are sincere about an agricultural center being built, their participation will increase, the two goals of the New Consensus for Farmland (NCF) includes two overlapping audiences, if the two items are separated then how do we get the traditional farmer interested in farmland preservation; the agricultural center could be the focal point to get both goals accomplished. Other issues discussed included: getting people together to work together to do both parts of the NCF, getting different groups to join forces to seek a useable Agricultural Center such as home demonstration clubs, sheriff department firing range possibly livestock show, small acreage for demonstrations of environmental interests would bring more support, possibly tied in with hiking trails lands, part of the property could be a parkland. The APB concluded with a suggestion of having a discussion with Commissioner Jacobs at the next APB meeting. ITEM #5: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Draft 1/31/2001 Page 6 a. February 1, 2001 Agricultural Summit to be held at the Schley Grange Hall beginning at 8:30 with refreshments and ending with a lunch catered by Hobgoods Barbecue and Mapleview Farms ice cream. Speakers include Muffin Borsig from Mapleview Farms to talk about value added products, a greenhouse tomato grower from Wake County, Horse hay & turkey producer from Sampson County, Julian Philpot from Farm Bureau, Gerry Cohn from Farmland Trust , a panel discussion on conservation easements with Ed Norville Conservation Trust, Jean Earnhart, Bob Nutter, and Rich Shaw. It was noted that this date is in conflict with the farm show in Raleigh, which is a conflict for farmers. b. February 21 meeting — Speaker from American Farmland Trust. The American Farmland Trust has a new office in Graham. Commissioner Jacobs suggested having Gerry Cohn come to discuss what the American Farmland Trust (AFT) does. AFT does cost of community services plans. C. Joint Meeting with Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission. Heritage corridors and St. Mary's Road and other related issues may initiate a joint meeting in April d. Farmland Preservation Trust Fund grant was received for $107,000. A farmland conservation easement with Victor Walters is ongoing. e. Voluntary Agricultural Districts. A draft of a new voluntary agricultural district application was discussed. Wordage change was requested in the section of Conservation Agreement to change "non farm" to "development Stancil reported that the county attorney has agreed to review the document. Everyone liked the new application. ITEM #6: ADJOURNMENT The APB adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. Draft 1/31/2001 f Page 1 DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD February 21, 2001 PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Nancy Goodwin, Bob Strayhorn, Louise Tate, Noah Ranells, Environment & Resource Conservation Preservation Planner Tina Moon, Administrative Assistant Carol Melton. Guests present: Gerry Cohn. ABSENT: Charles Thompson, Elizabeth Walters, Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Rodney Recor. ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:40 by Chair Morrow. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Moon reported information about a local farmer who has expressed interested in the Voluntary Agricultural District program. ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 31, 2001 The members present reviewed the minutes but deferred the vote due to the lack of quorum. ITEM #4: SPECIAL PRESENTATION Gerry Cohn, American Farmland Trust (AFT) Morrow introduced and thanked Cohn for attending. Cohn gave an overview of the American Farmland Trust (AFT), its twenty -year history and its mission for the future. The AFT maintains several regional offices along with its main office in Washington DC, which focuses on federal policy. Cohn has recently opened a new office in Graham, North Carolina that will serve a five - state region including the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia. He noted that North Carolina is ahead of most of the southeast in farmland preservation with its state funded farmland trust fund and conservation tax credit program, and its Agriculture District programs administered at the local level. North Carolina has also begun a very active land trust movement as a form of farmland preservation. Cohn said that his charge was to support farmland preservation wherever possible throughout his southeast region. "I'm here to learn about this group's work and to share with you some things that AFT has done in other places Draft 2/21/2001 Page 2 9 around the country to see what might apply here. There is no one size fits all solution." Farmland protection has been and continues to be most effective where an assortment of different preservation tools are available. Money is certainly a big piece of the puzzle. Cohn complemented - Orange County on its efforts to promote the importance of agriculture, and said that he uses our county as his example when he travels around the southeast. "I was impressed with the turnout, farmers, commissioners, school board members, etc., at the recent Agricultural Summit and getting everyone involved is what will make it work." Cohn shared a series of publications done by AFT from around the country, particularly those related to cost of community services studies. "We go into a county take a snapshot of a given year and time and look at the cost of providing services to different classifications of land use, usually residential, industrial, and farmland. In most cases industrial land generally comes out the best because it provides a high level of taxation. Residential comes out the worse due to schools, water, sewer. Farmland comes out as a net gain to the county. Although it doesn't bring in enormous revenue even at cost use taxation it costs the county almost nothing in services. Cohn mentioned hearing a speaker last month, who said, "it's cheaper for us to buy development rights from farmers now than to pay for services on sprawling development." Ranells asked how much a study of this type costs. Cohn said that it depends on several things such as how the data is set up within the county and whether the county can provide the manpower to do the study. AFT sometimes trains interns to do the work. Goodwin noted that Orange County is doing a study on the cost of services verses tax dollars. AFT is working on a methodology to combine cost of service information with twenty -year growth projections so that you could look at a map of the county and see how an area might be built out over a certain period. Tate asked how long it takes to complete a study like this. Cohn said a couple of months, once everything is in place. The APB agreed that it is important to convince the general population that preserving farmland is important. Tate said that a lot of people think that 100 acres with 100 houses on it is more valuable than 100 acres of open land. People don't realize the cost of services for those 100 houses. Morrow noted that the study needs to say you need to have this kind of density within this number of miles of the existing services -- sewer, water, and so on, to justify development based on this tax revenue and this cost of providing services. It leads you to growth policies for clustered higher development rather than spread out development. Cohn suggested that the APB assess the county to see what its needs really are. For example, how much agriculture is going on in the county, what is the value of Draft 2/21/2001 10 Page 3 agriculture to the county, and what is being grown. Compare it to existing roads and projected. growth to get a sense of what the county will look like in twenty years. Then you can get into specific suggestions such as processing facilities, marketing resources, and capital availability. Other ideas include a promotional newspaper, which lists local farms and a yearly farm breakfast, which is a chance for farmers to show what they are doing, have local _officials show their support, and get people to see how nice it is to have farms around them. Morrow noted the ongoing work of SOCF and the APB's recommendations for more VAD program incentives and getting the county commissions to fund and enact regulations necessary to get those. Strayhorn noted that we have only marginal agriculture land in Orange County and all the things that put pressure on good agriculture lands such as universities and hospitals. It's a tough battle for the farmer to make a decent living on the land considering the surrounding pressures. Cohn noted that unfortunately the agriculture that NC has traditionally been based on tobacco, corn, and beans are at an all time low. Strayhorn noted that tobacco has been the one product that farmers could grow on a small. farm, and make a living and raise a family. Now that tobacco production is on the decline, we're trying to find things we can use to fill that gap. Ranells asked about tax relief and how the APB could recommend something like that. Cohn said that the Farm Bureau is best resource as far as tax opportunity. Discussion of use value taxation ensued, including thoughts that the average non -farm taxpayer thinks that farmers are paying less taxes than they are. They don't realize that the farmer pays the same taxes as others on their house, lot and equipment. One suggestion was that VAD participants should receive reduced use value taxation. Morrow asked how the APB can use the AFT to learn, new things and to get advice about things such as wording on the VAD application. Morrow noted that the APB is grappling with the language on the VAD agreement document. We're trying to be specific in a small document. Discussion continued about why anyone would want to be in the VAD program. Strayhorn said that it has to be a personal commitment and love for the land. Tate noted that her family is dedicated to the farm operation, as well as her son, and they want to keep the farm going. That is the reason they joined the VAD program. In talking with estate planners it is not recommended to plan further than one generation because what you plan might be a hindrance rather than a help to the next generation. Goodwin noted that farmers are reluctant to tie up their land in perpetuity and asked how the AFT deals with this sort of problem. Cohn replied that they, very respectfully, consider everyone's situation. That is why he encourages communities to have a range of alternatives for people in different situations. Draft 2/21/2001 3 Page 4 11 Cohn said that the Massachusetts PDR program, called APR, is one of oldest in the country. "We talked to seventy -five farmers who participated in that program ten years later, and asked them what happened, what did you do with the money, and what are you doing now. It was encouraging to see the farms were still operating." Discussion continued regarding the need for different tools available to fit different situations to initiate participation in the VAD program. Other topics discussed: if the county uses tax dollars to buy open space or farmland and should PDR and TDR programs have a regulatory process to ensure that the program is used as intended. Ranells asked what else was going on in the state level. Cohn reported that at the state level the question of future funding for farmland preservation trust agencies is being considered. The Grange talked about it at the summit and that they are looking for a dedicated funding source. "It's good to start asking questions; it alerts legislators to begin looking at agriculture preservation as if it is something to invest in for the long run." Kentucky recently received forty -five million dollars for farmland preservation that came out of the tobacco fund. Kentucky has been funded at about the same level as North Carolina has for the last few years. South Carolina does not have a state PDR program, there is one in legislature now which may get voted in but they are in the same kind of budget situation as we are. Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax so they are not looking too good. "One of the nice things I saw was in Georgia. Farmers pushing for an application forced the state to develop ranking criteria, and develop a farmland protection program in order to be eligible for federal dollars." Strayhorn asked if the AFT was involved in promoting forestry. Cohn noted that we're getting more interested in forestry particularly in the southeast as it is important for a lot of farms in this part of the country. The negative publicity associated with cutting trees in this county has people are afraid to commit to forestry because they're afraid that when the trees mature they won't be able to harvest them, Strayhorn noted. Maybe the APB could recommend the promotion of forestry for the VAD program. Forestry is a great opportunity for people with other occupations to hold onto their land and generate some type of income, particularly if the owner isn't physically able to work it. It would be better to plant in trees for harvest than to sell the land. Cohn noted that public education is a good opportunity to let people know that trees are a valuable resource, replanting is a good agriculture and economic use of the land. We've been trying to promote the idea of multiple benefits of farmland throughout the country including the loss of food supply to Americans. Unfortunately, consumers can buy produce cheaper than they ever have with a wider variety so they think we don't need to protect farmland. The price of food is just one small piece of the puzzle. We need to keep emphasizing the idea of buying locally grown products, rural heritage, the whole biological economy -- including water quality, wildlife habitat. We should also begin forming alliances with hunter and wildlife Draft 2/21/2001 4 12 Page 5 organizations for the protection of farmland. Other ideas of raising quail and offering hunting for a fee in an adjoining county was discussed. Ranells asked if AFT has periodical mailing. Cohn said not yet, but he would like to start a regional newsletter and would add this group to the mailing list. He offered his services as a resource person for grant proposals and encourage everyone to look at www.farmland.org. Cohn also distributed a list of eight or ten things that AFT does. Cohn announced and explained the "Ultimate Farmland Preservation Tour" and promised to send the information in the mail, and encouraged everyone to spread the word especially to elected officials. Morrow thanked Cohn and the APB applauded AFT for its efforts. ITEM #5: ITEMS FOR DECISION a. APB Comments — Shaping Orange County's Future Provisional Report The APB made minor word changes to their draft comments on SOCF Provisional Report. It was noted that the Appendix E "Small Organic Farm Preservation" listed in the information item section was included at Mandell's request. It had been referred to by Mandell at the previous meeting (it is a part of the SOCF task force report). The APB discussed the SOCF report as being slanted toward organic farming and wanted to make it known that a lot of this county is in traditional farming. We want to encourage all types of farming without questioning techniques that are regulated and protected already. The members. present agreed that the summary sheet of the APB's comments regarding the SOCF's Provisional Report was satisfactory. ITEM #6: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. February 1, 2001 Agricultural Summit follow -up. The APB discussed the success of this year's Agricultural Summit. b. Joint Meeting with Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission. Moon reported that the joint meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 4th or May 2"d- The purpose of a joint meeting is to discuss ways to work together to achieve common goals, particularly in those areas where Planning and Environment & Resource Conservation overlap. Draft 2/21/2001 Page 6 The idea of keeping open space for agriculture purposes once a farm is partially developed was discussed. The Rural Character Study was discussed in relation to larger farms having areas that could be developed without impact the farm. Discussion of the rural character study included why and how it was done. C. Voluntary Agricultural Districts With another potential VAD applicant on the horizon, the APB discussed the need to fine -tune the application form. Concerns were raised regarding the use of the word "non- farm" in the second paragraph of the agreement. We're asking them to give up development rights, but we don't want to take away agricultural use such as a 4 -H camp, FFA fishing rodeo, or similar uses that some people might consider non -farm. Strayhorn noted that a cellular tower lease could provide money for a farm family to survive but neighbors might call it a non -farm use. If a cellular tower is allowed by other ordinances, they shouldn't be prohibited by this document. The APB discussed the potential for different interpretations of the agreement by different departments, as well as the pros and cons of a laundry-list of permitted uses approach versus an intentionally vague definition. ITEM #7: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. National Farm Transition Network b. AFT — Farm Bill information c. Small Organic Farm Preservation (SOCF Economy Committee Appendix — Marty Mandell d. Agriculture Summit Article ITEM #8: ADJOURNMENT The APB adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. Draft 2/21/2001 6 Farm and Open Space Preservation Work Group: Final Report Adopted by the Legislative Commission to Address Smart Growth, Growth Management and Development Issues on January 19, 2001 Work Group Co- Chairs: • Senator Allen Wellons • Commissioner Barry Jacobs Commission Members: • Representative Andy Dedmon • Commissioner Mary Ann Enloe • Pricey Harrison • Todd Mansfield • Julian Philpott Work Group Participants: • Professor Lee Johnson • Sarah Robertson • Charles Roe Advisors: • Meg Ryan O'Donnell, Senior Advisor, Commission to Address Smart Growth ■ Anita Watkins, Senior Policy Analyst, NC DENR For information, contact Meg Ryan O'Donnell at smartgrowth @mindspring.com or call (919) 836.5261 Farm and Open Space Preservation Work Group Adopted by the Legislative Commission to Address Smart Growth, Growth Management and Development Issues — January i19, 2001 Work Group Vision North Carolina must promote a flexible, incentive- oriented, community - based, state - supported approach to preserving and protecting open space. The state's open space resources include parks, water supply watersheds, active farming and forestry operations, wetlands and floodplains, historic sites, gamelands, and many other significant natural, recreational, and cultural features. A priority should be placed on protecting those natural areas that playa vital role in protecting the. environment and our economy. Measures to preserve the benefits of open space for present and future generations should support private stewardship and respect private property rights. Purpose The goal of the work group was to understand existing state, local and private- sector policies, programs, and organizations that affect farms, forestry and other aspects of open space preservation in North Carolina. The work group heard from those responsible for program implementation and from individuals who utilized and/or benefited from a program. Other states' approaches and programs were also reviewed. The work group examined the relationship of open space to water and air quality, sedimentation and erosion, economic viability of agriculture, hazard mitigation, preservation of cultural values, and quality of life. Principles North Carolina has an obligation to protect its natural resources. Article XIV, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution states: "It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreational, and scenic areas, to control and limit the pollution of our air and water, to control excessive noise, and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and-places of beauty." North Carolina has a commitment to protect its natural resources. GS 113A -240, enacted in 2000 to support the initiative to preserve one million acres, states: "It is the intent of the General Assembly to continue to support and accelerate the state's programs of land conservation and protection, to find means to assure and increase funding for these programs, and to improve the coordination, efficiency, and implementation of the various state and local land protection programs operating in North Carolina." ■ Open space is integral to the lives and culture of North Carolinians. • Open space takes many forms apart from parks, greenways and natural areas, including farms, forests and working landscapes. • Protection of water supplies and waterways is essential to the public's health and safety. • The State of North Carolina must take a leadership role in providing a greenspace safety net by providing planning, funding, oversight, and other support. • The Million Acres Initiative is a key component of the state's efforts to protect open space. • Preservation of farmland and open space requires mutually supportive partnership between citizens and state and local governments. • Dedicated funding sources are crucial to the success of all significant state programs that protect open space. • State policies should promote private land stewardship and respect private property rights. • Open space and farmland preservation policies should be consistent with rural prosperity and affordable housing goals. • The cost of open space preservation should be shared broadly among the beneficiaries. 1. THE STATE ROLE A. STATE POLICY Objective 1A.1: Protect floodways, 100 -year floodplains and waterways. ■ Limit contributing state assistance to state or local government construction located in floodways or 100 -year floodplains, except for transportation projects, trails, and water access and wastewater collection and treatment facilities. • Strictly limit impervious surface generated by state - funded transportation facilities in floodways or floodplains. ■ Locate state - funded projects in a manner that minimizes destruction of existing wetlands. ■ Adopt stormwater management plans for state - funded projects consistent with state and federal stormwater regulations. ■ Ban the selling of, leasing of, and granting of easements to state lands to private industrial development projects that are located in floodways or floodplains. ■ Ban the use of state funds, state tax credits, and state bond proceeds to private or public industrial development projects located in floodways or floodplains. 2 ■ Make public acquisition for protection of land in high- hazard floodplain areas a priority. Objective 1A.2: Develop consistency with local plans. ■ Promote coherence between state government funding and permit decisions and adopted local land -use, agricultural preservation, open space, urban growth, watershed protection, environmental, transportation, and other plans. Objective 1A.3: Promote regional connectivity of dedicated open space. • Make additional matching state funds available for planning for those jurisdictions with adopted Park and Open Space (POS) plans. • Provide state financial support for regional open space planning that assists the linkage of local government plans across jurisdictional boundaries. Objective IAA Establish as a prime principle in locating state or state - funded facilities, including those funded with tax credits, respect for open space protected by state, local, or private entities. Assess and minimize environmental impacts on open space protected by state, local, or private entities when siting state facilities following the guidelines set in the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971. Objective 1A.5: Promote private land stewardship and respect private property rights. Programs should be voluntary, incentive - based, and to the greatest extent possible achieve permanent protection of resources. Objective 1A.6: Make matching funds available for local governments, with preference given to those with adopted plans to protect farmland, watersheds, floodplains, and/or open space. ■ Preference should be given to projects initiated by local governments or private entities that offer matching funds and have adopted appropriate long -range plans. ■ Punds should be available to all local governments to execute the planning necessary to gain preference in acquiring matching funds. Matching funds should be available to all counties, with low or no matches required of those least able to pay, based on the economic tiers established by the NC Division of Community Assistance. Objective 1A.7: Coordinate state programs and agencies dedicated to preserving, acquiring or otherwise protecting open space. 3 ■ Review state programs devoted to protecting open space to assure they are effectively coordinated and efficiently administered. • Create an entity to coordinate all state programs associated with protecting or preserving open space, including farmland. • Require long -range strategic plans for state entities that acquire and protect open space. ■ Coordinate the dissemination of information about activities of state programs and agencies that acquire or protect open space, including the issuance of a comprehensive annual report. Objective 1A.8: Support the Million Acre Initiative. ■ Fund a coordinator and support staff for the Million Acre Initiative. ■ Incorporate the Million Acre Initiative into existing state programs to acquire and protect open space. ■ Create a Million Acre Advisory Panel, with representatives appointed by the governor and General Assembly to include private interests and local government. B. STATE LAND (universities, colleges, prisons, government facilities, parks, historic sites, gamelands, etc.) Objective 1B.1: Lead by example ■ Survey existing resources and-significant natural features (unusual botanical communities, buffers along perennial streams, etc.). ■ Develop protection plans for significant natural features. ■ Prohibit construction of buildings, except wastewater treatment facilities, in identified floodways or in floodplains. ■ Minimize impervious surfaces, including transportation- related facilities, located within floodplains. ■ Respect floodplain, watershed, ridge, coastal, and other environmental regulations in siting state facilities and executing state.policies. Objective 1B.2: Support parks, natural areas, recreation areas, trails, historic sites, and other state -owned lands and state- protected waterways with adequate funding. ■ Strengthen and expand the state park system to preserve sites of statewide significance. ■ Update a long -range plan for acquisition and operations within the state park system. El ■ Develop and protect park properties as components of larger landscapes. ■ Maintain the practice of free access to state parks for all North Carolinians. ■ Charge a park entrance fee to non -North Carolina visitors. ■ Station collection personnel only at single- entry, high - volume park facilities. ■ Employ honor system collections at all facilities not staffed to collect fees. ■ Incorporate protection of historic properties and vistas into state parks and recreation projects to the greatest extent possible. C. EDUCATION Objective 1C.1: Publicize existing parks and recreations facilities ■ Improve signage indicating proximity of state parks, forests, and other natural areas along major interstate and U.S. highways and on public transportation routes. Create a map highlighting the existence of state, local and national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, historic sites; and other protected areas in North Carolina. Objective 1C.2: Publicize existing programs that assist private property owners, including businesses, such as the Conservation Tax Credit program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, and the Forest Stewardship Program. Objective 1C.3: Understand and promote the economic impact of greenspace. ■ Work with the N.C. Department of Commerce to develop economic impact data that quantify the positive effect of protected open space at a local and state level in terms of park visits, enviro - tourism, agri- tourism, active recreation, public and environmental health benefits, increase in property values in urban areas, etc. ■ Planning money should be available to local governments for cost of community service studies to demonstrate the fiscal impact of specific land uses. ■ Develop market data to compare the sales value and tax value of conventional versus open space subdivisions. Objective 1CA: Develop a program for Smart Growth awards. ■ Establish Governor's Smart Growth Awards to be given annually for significant achievements by government, non - profit, business, and private entities in different categories, with a specific category of recognition for protection of open space. Objective 1C.5: Develop database of land -use design techniques for conservation. 5 Enlist an appropriate public entity (such as the Institute of Government, Division of Community Assistance, Council of Governments or agency designated to address smart growth) to compile model strategies that incorporate protected open space into developments through land -use plans, subdivision designs, and local ordinances. Develop a defensible model for protecting open space in new developments and through the subdivision process in North Carolina. Encourage compact urban service areas by asking the Institute of Government or other appropriate entity to investigate a model land use classification of public water /wastewater line that will restrict the capacity of tap -ons according to local land -use or watershed protection plans. Objective 1C.6: Promote understanding of farmland and forestland as open space. ■ Educate urban and suburban residents on the contribution of farmland and forestland to preservation of open space, protection of the environment, and promotion of economic vitality and cultural values. ■ Enlist the Institute of Government or other appropriate institution to educate local and state elected officials on what statutory and programmatic resources are available to promote preservation of open space by individuals and government. Objective 1C.7: Consider developing an environmental educational /training program at the Institute of Government or other similar entity for elected and appointed officials. Objective 1C.8: Provide benchmark reports. ■ Track annual progress toward state objectives in open space protection programs,'and report to the General Assembly and the people of North Carolina. D. PLANNING AND MAPPING Objective 1D.1: Assist local governments in providing baseline data, with matching funds available based on ability to pay and on the existence of an appropriate plan. • The state should undertake studies on behalf of the poorest counties. • An adopted farmland preservation plan should continue to qualify for preference in gaining matching funds. ■ An adopted Park and Open Space plan should qualify for preference in.gaining matching funds, as in agriculture, based on ability to pay. Objective 1D.2: Encourage regional open space planning. A ■ Supply matching funds for regional open space planning. ■ Encourage inter - connectivity of regional open space plans. Objective 1D.3: Identify prime, threatened, and culturally or environmentally significant farmlands in every county for protection through voluntary, incentive -based programs. Objective 1DA: Develop a state priority protection plan for farmlands. ■ Once mapping is completed, reserve funds to preserve farmlands that merit high priority from a statewide perspective, consistent with providing an open space safety net. Objective 1D.5: Finish update of mapping of floodplains in North Carolina.. Objective 1D.6: Develop accurate mapping of wetlands and a wetlands inventory tracking system. Objective 1D.7: Pursue completion of natural areas inventories in all 100 counties for protection through voluntary, incentive -based programs. Objective 1D.8: Notify owners of relevant mapping designations that might affect their property. Objective 1D.9: Make Natural Heritage Trust Fund monies available to counties and qualifying land trusts on a matching basis to protect identified significant natural areas. Objective 1D.10: Assist local governments to develop land -use inventories and land suitability analyses which portray the areas of development most at -risk to natural and environmental hazards. 2. PARTNERSHIPS A. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Objective 2A.1: Encourage local governments to protect open space. ■ Provide incentives to secure state funding for planning and acquisition programns. All local governments should be eligible for matching funds in acquisition. Objective 2A.2: Empower local governments to more easily protect open space. ■ Provide legislative authority to allow broader avenues for raising revenue and devising innovative regulatory and land -use strategies. B. LAND TRUSTS Objective 2B.1: Support efforts by non - profit land trusts to preserve open space. 7 ■ Allow supplemental grant funding for building capacity to protect more land and to educate landowners about conservation options and tax incentives through the existing Conservation Grant Fund. ■ Allow some part of matching grant funds to be applied for operations. ■ Authorize the NC Attorney General to enter into agreements to defend and enforce conservation lands and easements held by land trusts. • Amend statutes to allow direct grants to qualified land trusts from the NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund and Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, as is already the case with the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund. ■ Make low- interest loans available to qualifying land trusts to acquire, protect and manage open space. C. PRIVATE LAND OWNERS Objective 2C.1: Encourage private property owners to protect open space. ■ Provide incentives to secure state funding for easements and other protection measures. ■ Improve publicity for, and dissemination of, information for landowners on open space protection strategies. Objective 2C.2: Include private property owners in planning. ■ Farmland and open space plans should be crafted through a public process that specifically includes participation by affected property owners. D. BUSINESS COMMUNITY Objective 2D.1: Encourage private - public partnerships. Develop an Adopt- A- Green space program, similar to the existing Adopt -A- Highway program. ■ Encourage the banking industry to provide revolving /low- interest loan funds to qualified land conservation organizations to acquire and protect important open space lands. E. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Objective 2E.1: Coordinate protection efforts with existing federal facilities. ■ Encourage the federal government to develop plans to protect significant natural areas on its properties within North Carolina. ■ Extend state open space protection planning to complement federal parks, forests, historic sites, wildlife refuges, military bases, and other resources. Seek partnerships where appropriate to combine resources with the federal government. F. OTHER ,JURISDICTIONS Objective 2F.1: Coordinate protection efforts with tribal nations and tribes recognized by the state of North Carolina ■ Encourage development of plans to protect significant natural areas on tribal properties. ■ Offer planning support and funding incentives to develop protection strategies. ■ Seek the same protection standards upheld elsewhere in North Carolina. Objective 2F.2: Coordinate protection efforts with neighboring states. ■ Stress the interconnectivity of open space, and pursue joint planning efforts. ■ Promote joint efforts based on protection of water quality. 3. FORMS OF OPEN SPACE A. IMPROVE FARM PRESERVATION Objective 3A.1: Retain and improve existing programs that strengthen the ability of farmers.to sustain economically viable agricultural operations and to serve as prime- stewards of the land. (For example: present use - value, Farmland Preservation Trust, CREP, wetland restoration). Objective 3A.2: Adopt a statewide goal to minimize loss of prime, threatened, culturally or environmentally significant farmland after surveying the state's farmland. Objective 3A.3: Support N.C. based agricultural economies. ■ Encourage universities, colleges, prisons, and other state institutions to give first buying preference to NC food and fiber. ■ Develop the capability, either within the NC Dept. of Agriculture or in coordination with local governments, to provide small operators with financial planning assistance and brokerage of products to local institutions. Create regional value -added agricultural processing centers where producers can lease or purchase services or facilities. 9 ■ Devote research funds to develop alternative crops to replace tobacco, and to finding alternative uses for the tobacco plant. • Support environmentally sensitive aquaculture. Objective 3AA: Streamline state regulations to simplify agricultural diversification by small operators. Objective 3A.5: Increase participation in, and use of, Voluntary Farmland Preservation Districts. • Institute speed limit reducti on,wi thin designated Voluntary Farmland Preservation Districts so farmers may safely move equipment on secondary public roads. ■ Waive the rollback tax on farmer -to- farmer transfer for non - linear descendants. ■ Allow easement leasing, as for 10 -year periods. (The state's priority funding should continue to go to property owners granting permanent easements.) ■ . Permit a local government option to forgo some taxes in exchange for short-term easement leasing, such as property tax on buildings and equipment or deferring property tax. ■ Increase protection from condemnation, such as requiring a hearing before the local agriculture board. Objective 3A.6: Improve the existing Present Use -Value Taxation program. ■ Establish uniform interpretation for calculating value. ■ Allow a low - impact conservation option for forestry (county option). ■ Allow reduced size, but not income, to qualify under agricultural operation. ■ Waive rollback tax for all [farmer -to- farmer] transfers, and provide that a purchasing farmer is immediately eligible for the use -value tax benefit. ■ Allow land protected by conservation easement to qualify for present -use value. Objective 3A.7: Provide funds to local governments and land trusts engaged in farmland preservation. ■ Continue to allow counties with adopted agricultural preservation plans to qualify for matching state funds for farmland protection. Objective 3A.8: State Responsibility. ■ Reserve part of any funding pool for projects directly sponsored by the state. (For instance, protection of farmland that meets numerous preservation criteria such as containing prime IN soils, located in water supply watershed, culturally significant, and/or includes significant natural area. See 1DA). Objective 3A.9: Increase annual state funding for the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, with establishment of dedicated funding sources to supplement general appropriations: • Increase funding for trust fund from the present $1.5 million to at least $15 million. • Establish a surcharge on public water supply users, to be set aside for protection of critical water - quality protection lands in the watershed where the water resource is to be protected. • Establish a mitigation fee for every acre of farmland taken out of agricultural production for development purposes, either a flat amount or a percentage of the sale price. • Dedicate rollback taxes obtained within a county to fiord farmland preservation. . Objective 3A.10: Enable counties and municipalities to defer or eliminate property taxes on private land subject to conservation easements or other long -term conservation management agreements. B. ENHANCE PROTECTION OF FORESTS Objective 3B.1: Support increased coordination with local government. • Improve coordination of state forestry management staff and practices with local government land -use, open space, watershed, and natural area protection plans. • Enable counties to enact ordinances for tree protection that are equivalent in statutory authority to those powers already afforded to some municipalities. Objective 3B.2: Support notice prior to cutting. • Support legislation to give the NC Forest Service and local government pre - harvest notification of thirty (30) days. Objective 3B.3: Develop.strategy to protect significant natural areas. • Encourage purchase of timber rights for significant natural areas identified and adopted by a county following a natural areas inventory. Require Forest Service to notify property owners of areas that are so designated, and to coordinate cooperation between the local government and private landowners. ■ Add low - impact conservation forestland as another category of private property eligible for present use property tax assessment, in addition to lands used for active forest management, agriculture, and horticulture. Currently only forest plans that include cutting qualify for property tax reductions. (See 3A.6). 11 Objective 3BA: Encourage forestry protection programs. ■ Increase the assessment per ton on processed wood and use to fund Forest Legacy Program, more water quality monitoring personnel, and possible purchase of timber rights program. ■ Encourage forest cover. in protected watersheds and wetlands, and to buffer waterways. ■ Require the Forest Service to promote selective harvesting techniques and consultations with registered foresters. ■ Examine environmental impacts of forestry practices to achieve improved methods for protecting forestland, especially in urbanizing counties where forested cover is crucial to watershed protection and to reduction of runoff and erosion, air quality, wildlife habitat, and connectivity of natural and wildlife resources. . Objective 3B.5: Update state forest inventory analysis and develop a comprehensive state plan for forest sustainability. C. IMPROVE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION Objective 3C.1: Enhance Clean Water Management Trust Fund- Provide greater flexibility for the use of funds within watersheds to allow, among other things, installment purchases and application of grant monies not tied strictly to a 300 -foot distance from a waterway. ■ Support reclaimed water programs. ■ Refine standards for funding by convening a conference with the CWMTF board and previous award winners, those denied funds, land trusts, representatives of local government and of the development and agriculture communities. ■ Give added weight in granting funds to jurisdictions that have an adopted land -use, watershed protection, or other plan that bans development in floodways, floodplains, and wetlands. ■ Give added weight in granting funds to jurisdictions that have AN adopted Park and Open Space plan, watershed protection, or comparable plan that are linked to water quality protection and restoration:. ■ Consider some geographical, as well as strictly merit- based, criteria for allotting funds, with special attention to river basins. Objective 3C.2: Enhance programs to assure optimal operation of on -site wastewater treatment systems. 12 ■ Develop a pilot septic tank monitoring program through the N.C. Division of Environmental Health to be possibly replicated by local governments. , Enhance educational programs to inform homeowners on the function and maintenance of septic tanks and non - conventional wastewater treatments systems. Develop a repair fund to assist low- income individuals to pay for repair of failing systems in water supply watersheds and sensitive coastal areas. Objective 3C.3: Develop measures to improve stormwater management. ■ Require vegetative buffers along all waterways in North Carolina, and mitigate to an equivalent degree any exceptions to the preservation of the buffers. ■ Ensure low tax value, as in present use value taxation, for required buffers. ■ Develop policies that eliminate loss of streams to piping and other development. ■ Adopt stormwater management plans for state - funded projects consistent with state and federal stormwater regulations. ■ Develop and implement a coordinated and comprehensive statewide stormwater management education and awareness program. Encourage local governments to require stormwater management plans consistent with state and federal stormwater regulations. Allow local governments to include stormwater management fees in annual tax billings, including applying unpaid fees as a lien against property. ■ Link funding for infrastructure to implemented stormwater management plans that are sufficient to meet water quality standards. Objective 3CA: Wetlands protection should be strengthened. ■ Articulate statewide goal of no net loss of pristine and coastal wetlands, as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ■ Develop accurate mapping of wetlands and a wetlands inventory tracking system. ■ Locate state - funded projects in a manner that avoid wetlands where possible or practical and requires mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. ■ Support and adequately fund the Wetlands Restoration Program, already in existence. ■ Develop the long -term capability within state government to check and monitor all lands set aside for protection. Maintenance, enforcement, monitoring should be a general requirement ,13 for all land conserved. There should be special provisions for maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement for wetlands due to their unique nature. Link funding for infrastructure to adopted and implemented plans that protect wetlands. Objective 3C.5: Require urban water users to participate in protection of the watershed from which their water supply is derived. ■ Establish a surcharge on public water supply users, to be set aside for protection of critical water - quality, protection lands in the watershed where the water resource is to be protected. D. PROMOTE ESTABLISHMENT AND PROTECTION OF LOCAL PARKS, GREENWAYS, RECREATION AREAS, AND HISTORIC SITES. Objective 3D.1: Encourage comprehensive open space planning at a state and local level. ■ Promote creation of local Park and Open Space plans that address both low- impact and active recreation. ■ Achieve a general statewide balance, geographically and along urban / rural lines, in securing protected open space. ■ Give preference in granting state funds or other support to facilities that are shared by multiple local governments or by schools and local governments. ■ Promote connectivity of greenways and recreation areas across jurisdictional boundaries. ■ Support coordination of open space planning and watershed protection. ■ Support increased funding and planning for protection of historic landscapes and scenic viewsheds. Objective 3D.2: Recognize the public benefit of open space in urban areas. ■ Pursue acquisition and protection of open space for active recreational purposes as well as low- impact purposes. ■ Respect privately held open space. ■ Preserve open space as a key component in urban settings, and provide low- impact recreation in urban areas. E. PROMOTE ESTABLISHMENT AND PROTECTION OF NATURAL AREAS AND WILDLIFE HABITATS Objective 3E.1: Encourage linkage of water quality and open space planning. 14 ■ Provide incentives for local governments that include floodplain protection in Park and Open Space plans. • Provide incentives for local governments that exceed required buffers on all waterways, including greenways and wildlife corridors, within their jurisdiction. • Provide state matching funds to compile regional and statewide inventories and mapping of high priority environmentally sensitive areas. ■ Encourage local governments to incorporate information about locations of threatened species, habitats, or natural areas into local land -use and open space protection plans. ■ Increase funds available to Natural Heritage Trust Fund. Objective 3E.2: Refine state policies to increase protection of natural areas. ■ Improve coordination of economic development with open space protection. ■ Prevent state- funded projects, including those funded by tax- credits and other assistance, from creating adverse impacts on protected open space as well as wetlands, floodplains, and other sensitive natural areas. Objective 3E.3: Keep beaches public and unspoiled. • Continue to aggressively defend the public right to the sandy oceanfront beach by maintaining the state's ban on hardened structures and the public right to use the beach. • Identify which barrier islands, or parts of barrier islands., are appropriate candidates for renounshment and which are not, based upon a beach plan that is scientifically and technically defensible, and includes realistic cost estimates. ■ Develop density restrictions as well as specific public access requirements for beach communities that receive public funding for beach renourishment. ■ Develop and implement exit strategies for those beach communities where beach renourishment is not appropriate or feasible. ■ Existing trust funds dedicated for natural heritage, recreation, and water quality protection should not be used or allocated to fund beach renourishment projects. 4. TOOLS A. EXPAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FLEXIBILITY Objective 4A.1: Give local governments greater access to land -use tools. 15 • Support the transfer of density within a jurisdiction as the simplest and potentially most equitable method for shifting development toward and away from certain areas. Support legislative authority for pilot programs at the local Ievel for use of transfer of development rights program with a review of the program after a certain period of time. Objective 4A.2: Expand application of the present use value system. • Allow local governments, at their option, to establish additional categories of land use to qualify for present use value taxation. 'Objective 4A.3: Grant local governments equivalent taxing authority. Grant to all local governments the taxing powers already allocated to some local governments. ■ Allow local governments to expand their taxing options subject to voter approval for purposes of protecting open space through application of impact fees and taxes, increased real estate transfer and local option sales taxes, prepared meal and other levies. Objective 4AA: Promote planning. Give preference in providing state matching and grant funds to jurisdictions with adopted Park and Open Space plans, farmland preservation plans, watershed protection plans, stormwater management and other natural resource protection plans. B. ' PROMOTE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Objective 413.1: Broaden means of extending tax benefits to conserved land. ■ Automatically qualify land subject to conservation easements at present use value rate. ■ Allow counties and municipalities to defer or eliminate property taxes on private properties that are subject to conservation easements. Grant counties the ability to qualify low - impact forest conservation plans for present use value taxation. Objective 4B.2: Improve Conservation Tax Credit program. ■ Increase to 10 years the period to recover allowable state income tax credits for land conservation. ■ Expand categories of land qualifying for the conservation tax credit to include all types of environmentally significant land resources. 16 ■ Assure adequate dissemination of information and other technical assistance to promote conservation tax credit system among all property owners. Objective 4B.3: Protect land covered by a conservation or other open space preservation easement. Discourage the siting of state- or locally- funded projects, or utility projects, in a manner that adversely impacts land previously protected by easement. ■ Require a public hearing at which reasonable alternatives are considered prior to permitting state, local or utility projects to cross or destroy land subject to a conservation easement. 5. FUNDING OPTIONS A. SUPPORT EXISTING OPEN SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAMS Objective 5A.1: Support the broad range of existing North Carolina open space protection and other land conservation programs. ■ Ensure adequate funding for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, Natural Heritage Trust Fund, and Parks and Recreation Trust Fund. ■ Long -range plans to sustain open space efforts require a reliable and predictable source of funding. ■ Dedicated sources are key to providing stable funding. B. IDENTIFY AND AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION Objective 5B.1: Identify potential funding sources to bolster existing resources dedicated to open space protection. Some potential sources are: ■ Allow North Carolina income tax payers to specifically designate a portion of their taxes for open space protection programs. ■ Increase. the fee for a North .Carolina driver's license by one dollar ($1.00) per year, dedicating the additional revenue to open space protection programs. ■ Remove the tax ceiling on luxury vehicles, dedicating the additional revenue to open space protection programs. ■ Consider a seven hundred fifty million dollar ($750,000,000) bond issue to support open space protection and the Million Acre Initiative. 17. Establish a surcharge on public water supply users, to be set aside for protection of critical water- quality protection lands in the watershed where the water resource is to be protected. ■ Establish a mitigation fee for every acre of farmland taken out of agricultural production for development purposes, either a flat amount or a capped percentage of the sale price, to be shared between state acrd local farmland protection programs. • Charge a two - dollar park entrance fee to non -North Carolina visitors, to be dedicated to the Natural Heritage and the Parks and Recreation trust funds. Increase the real estate transfer tax (deed stamp tax) statewide by one dollar per one thousand dollars (one -tenth of one percent), including an exemption from the increase for farmer -to- farmer transfers and lower income housing, to be shared equally between the state and the originating local unit of government, the additional revenue to be dedicated to appropriate . state and local open space protection programs. • Increase assessment per ton on processed wood and use to fund Forest Legacy Program and possible purchase of timber rights program. Objective 5B.2: Authorize all local governments that meet smart growth planning criteria to make use of revenue sources currently authorized for a limited number of jurisdictions. For information, contact Meg Ryan O'Donnell at smartgrowth @mindspring.com or call 836 -5261 im a preservation report Coverings the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space Since 1990 # Deborah Bowen, Editor Lot rights at ,1 -50 density proposed for Md. preserved farms ANNAPOLIS, MD — Farms preserved in Maryland should come with development rights attached, at a density of one house per 50 acres, according to a Policy Review Committee recommendation backed by program director Paul W. Scheidt. The change in policy would be a by -right allowance that would run with the land. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation approved for distribution and review, Feb. 20, a memorandum on the proposed change. The proposal comes during a period of program review by a task force appointed by the governor last fall and charged with recommending im= provements by July T. The Policy Review Commit- tee is separate from the task force, and includes three local program administrators, two of whom opposed the policy as written. The policy would replace the program's. existing "child's lot" and "owner's lot" allowances that have been difficult for staff to administer, and annoying for the Foundation board to approve, according to Scheidt, who explained the changes to a task force subcommittee studying program procedures March 1. The proposed policy will eliminate the need to focus on who is requesting and who will be residing in homes on preserved farms and create more flexibility "by expanding the right to con- struct dwellings to include subsequent owners and not limiting the use of such dwellings, "the please tum to page 2 Oregon property.rights measure ruled unconstitutional PORTLAND, OR — A property rights compensation measure passed by Oregon voters last fall that would clearly have been the nation's most strin- gent, has been ruled unconstitutional by an Ore- gon circuit court judge. The issue, however, could be revisited in another ballot measure in Novem- ber 2002. Marion County Judge Paul Lipscomb, who issued an injunction to stop the law from going into effect in December, wrote in a 110 -page opinion that the measure violates the state's constitution because it made "direct and substan- tive changes" to Section 18 of the Constitution "without giving any notice to the voters." The judge also concluded that the measure contained multiple amendments when the Constitution requires that voters vote separately on different please turn to page 3 Volume 11, Number 5 March 2001 inside this issue ... $10,000 per acre cap could be lifted in Pa .................... p. 4 Points -based appraisals formally approved by feds ... p. 4 Maryland takes steps to speed process ......................... p. 4 Ca. study on farmer motivation to sell easements ..... p. 6 Legislative briefs ............................. ............................... p. 6,7 Bowers Farmland Preservation Report is published 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $185 includes index and hotline service. Editorial and Publishing, Inc. circulation offices- 9W La Grange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 • (410) 692 -2708 • ISSN: 1050 -6373. © 2001 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or forwarding of this material electronically without permission from the publisher is prohibited. gage 2 March 2001 farmland preservation report 3y -right lot exclusions proposed for Maryland program - ontinued from page i nemorandum stated. While the change would not be retroactive, the wiginal owner of a district or easement property vould be allowed to alter the existing easement iocument to obtain the development rights if a 1- ;0 density had not already been reached through ;hild's lots. Pre - existing residences would count toward he 1 -50 base density. Total number of residences vould be determined only by each full 50 acres, with no cap, so that a 400 -acre farm could have a otal of eight homes. A 250 -acre farm could have We lot rights, but a 249 -acre farm would have .our. Among a list of benefits provided in the memo was the greater flexibility "to retain equity in the and which can be used as a selling point, if and when the property is conveyed to a subsequent owner, making the land more marketable." "Landowners would be able to use this as a marketing tool," Scheidt said during a task force >ubcommittee meeting. "The downside is that every lot will be developed, but is that so bad ?" Scheidt said he believed the proposed policy -hange would be "a definite improvement to the program. It will preserve more land." Scheidt said he believes more farmers will apply to the program if proposed changes are approved. Most benefits cited in the memo focus on simplifying the approval and administration of lot exclusions. Wally Lippincott, director of the Baltimore County program and a member of the Policy Review Committee that sent the proposal for- ward, strongly opposes the change. The issue of a preserved farm's marketability in terms of lot allowances, he said, "is opposite to the purpose of the program," and ease of administration is a secondary concern to assuring the greatest-pos- sible level of preservation. Lippincott, and counterparts Tim Blaser of Frederick County and Bill Amoss of Harford County, said a key piece of information is lacking in the proposed policy: how many lot exclusions have been approved under current law over the history of the program, and how that number would compare to the estimated number that would occur under the proposed policy. The Policy Review Committee memo shows the maximum number of units that could poten- tially be built under current regulations, but to date very few, if any, farms have requested a maximum number of child's lots. The actual number of lot exclusions approved by the Foundation is not known, according to Iva Frantz, of Foundation staff. "Nobody's had time to do that," she said. According to Lippincott, 18 lot exclusions have been approved in Baltimore County, fewer than one per year over the history of the program, now in its 23rd year. Other program administrators queried said they did not know how many had been approved in their counties. During the Feb. 20 Foundation board meeting, several program administrators from Maryland's Eastern Shore counties testified in support of the proposal. Tim Blaser of Frederick County said he is opposed to the change as written. In an interview, he said the program's current rules create "an awkward problem in policing, but this will guar- antee all these lots will be used as they are passed down," the most troublesome aspect of the pro- posed change, he said. Donna Mennitto, land preservation consultant and former program administrator for Howard County, said the current rules are not only diffi- cult to enforce, but are sometimes abused. She said she favored the proposal generally. "Nowadays, it has, nothing to do with keeping a kid on the farm.I think we have to move away from real estate rights that are attached to indi- viduals because in the practical world that's hard to enforce." Mennitto added a lower density, perhaps 1- 100, should be considered. please continue to page 3 March 2001 farmland preservation report Md. lot exclusions, continued from page 2 Maryland Farm Bureau president Steve Weber said he needed more time to review the proposal, but so far he is "very uncomfortable" with it. "It seems like you're almost guaranteeing a sale ... I'm not sure what the impact will be." Weber said the Maryland Farm Bureau, noted for its lukewarm support of the farmland program since its inception, is "trying to make it a higher priority. We want to build the case for bumping up ag preservation." According to Weber, farm bureau membership is now "60 to 70 percent preservation people. The agricultural community is shifting. We want to build something for the long - term.'' Contact: Paul Scheidt, 410 841 -5860, Wally Lippincott, 410 887 -4488 x 241; Tim Blaser, 301694- 2513; Donna Mennitto, 410461 -4534; Steve Weber, 410 922 -3426. OREGON Voter - approved Measure 7 ruled unconstitutional continued from page 1 issues or aspects of an issue. Lipscomb wrote, "several of the provisions of Ballot Measure 7 do not appear to be 'closely related' in that a voter's support of one provision does not necessarily imply support for any of the others." The decision was based on recent rulings by the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals. "The requirement that a ballot -measure fully explain all the changes it makes to,the Oregon Constitution and the prohibition against bundling together multiple Constitutional amendments in one ballot measure are fundamental protections to voters in our initiative system.7hese protections are especially important in a case like this ..." Lipscomb wrote. The ruling came following a lawsuit brought by Audrey McCall, widow of former Governor Page 3 Tom McCall, a Republican who helped found 1000 Friends of Oregon in 1975 to protect the longevity of Senate Bill 100, the state's land use planning law he shepherded through the legislature in 1973. Hector Macpherson, a retired farmer who helped draft and pass Senate Bill 100 joined in the suit, along with the mayors of Salem and Jackson- ville and a Union County rancher and lawyer. The plaintiffs were represented pro bono by an attor- ney at the request of 1.000 Friends. According to observers, the new law could have bankrupted state agencies and local govern- ments with landowner claims it would have allowed. According to Oregon land use expert Mitch Rohse, the effect of Measure 7 would have been "even worse than we thought," based on analysis in Judge Lipscomb's decision. "First, its application to regulations that restrict the use of land applies more broadly than most folks expected," Rohse said, noting that the law probably would have affected even the state's recycling law because supermarkets could have filed for compensation for being required to maintain recycling operations on their property. Rohse also believes that if the legislature did not appropriate funds to a state agency specifi- cally to pay compensation claims, that agency would still be obligated to pay claims. "The Department of Land Conservation and Development, for example, has a budget of about $16 million per biennium. So, if the agency re- ceived claims for, say, $20 million, it Would have to suspend all discretional actions — such as enforcing the state's planning laws — pay as many of the claims as it could, up to $16 million, and essentially close its doors until the next bien- nium. According to Rohse, House Republicans will likely draft new legislation that will put the issue before the voters again in November 2002, with more careful language. "The Senate will hang back and see how that's please turn to page 4 Page 4 March 2001 farmland preservation report, Oregon Measure 7 may see second attempt at ballot- continued from page 3 received; but they'll sign onto it eventually unless it's really bad or runs into a lot of opposition. Gov. [John] Kitzhaber probably would veto almost any bill that has much of Measure 7 in it, so the legisla- ture will bypass him -by referring the bill to the voters." Maryland program takes steps to speed up easement processing ANNAPOLIS, MD — Steps have been taken to reduce the amount of time it takes to reach settle- ment in the Maryland farmland preservation program, according to program director Paul. Scheidt, although it is not yet known how much time will be saved as the changes are imple- mented. Scheidt outlined the changes to a task force subcommittee studying ways to improve program procedures. Scheidt told the subcommittee the administrative changes, already underway by staff, will save the task force a lot of work and recommended the subcommittee "support what we've already done." The changes include ordering title searches at the time an offer is made, rather than after an offer is accepted; providing a vehicle to the appraisal staff of the Department of General Services; the use of composite appraisals rather than third appraisals when values are far apart; and, hiring an additional settlement attorney and a paralegal, positions approved. by the Board of Public Works Jan. 24. Turning over appraisal, survey and title responsibilities to counties has not been discussed, Scheidt said, in response to an inquiry from subcommittee chair Phyllis Kilby, a county com- continue to page 5 etcetera ... Bill would lift $10,000 per acre cap in Pennsylvania program Harrisburg, PA — Legislation before the Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture Committee would lift the $10,000 per acre cap on state dollars used by counties in purchasing farmland easements. The move comes in an amendment to HB 101 that would delete the pro- vision from existing law. HB 101 would allow coun- ties to purchase easements on entire farms that cross county lines. The amendment to lift the cap was introduced by Rep. Raymond Bunt Jr. of Montgomery County, where easement purchase prices consistently range higher than $10,000 per acre, reaching up to $18,000 per acre, according to state program director Ray Pickering. The bill containing the amendment has passed the House and is now in the Senate Agriculture Committee. At a recent conference in Montgomery County, Rep. Bunt stated that high land values and urbaniza- tion should not deter Montgomery County from pursuing farmland preservation. "I think we do have a right to preserve agricul- ture here in Montgomery County," Bunt said, adding that if farmers were going to be paid for their devel- opment rights, "we have a responsibility to pay that farmer what his rights are worth. I feel very strongly about that." Bunt tried unsuccessfully to introduce a cap -lift . bill at the end of last year's session. Points - based appraisals approved for federal program Washington, D.C. — Federal grant applicants may use points -based formulas in place of standard appraisals to derive easement value for preservation projects using Farmland Protection Program funds, Tome Heisler of the Maryland NRCS confirmed Feb. 16. Heisler and federal program administrator Denise Coleman said Feb. 7 they were optimistic March 2001 Page 5 farmland preservation report attorneys for USDA would approve the request from some Maryland localities and land trusts to use point systems already in use-for farmland programs and approved bystafe agencies. The issue was discussed at a workshop sponsored by the Maryland program to review the federal program's recent request for proposals (see FPR, February). Coleman said her department is confident in systems in use in Maryland, but that applicants from other states would have to submit formulas "for review on a state -by -state basis... we want to make sure they meet federal appraisal standards." According to Coleman, the Department of Agri- culture determined that legal guidelines for the Farmland Protection Program did not require tradi- tional appraisals. More than 550 growth topics on ballots last fall Washington, D.C. — Voters in 38 states passed about 72 percent of more than 550 growth - related ballot meas- ures in November 2000, according to a study released by The Brookings Institution this month. Co- author Phyllis Meyers of State Resources Strategies said the measures covered the whole range of growth issues, including transportation, infrastruc- ture financing and open space protection. 'We wanted a full portrait of the issue. It was a formidable search." While farmland preservation was not the focus of the study, Myers said it was apparent that open space protection "was the hottest issue." Myers also said that incentives -based initiatives as well as regulatory approaches were more prevalent then in past years. Also in evidence was a willingness to change the way development occurs, she said. The study provides a full listing of the ballot measures and analyzes major proposals and implica- tions for future policy and activity among states and localities. The study, "Growth at the Ballot Box: Electing the Shape of Communities in November 2000 is available online at www.brook.edu /urban. The study was co- authored by Robert Puentes of The Brookings Institu- tion Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. continued from page 4 missioner from Cecil County. Scheidt said he had mixed feelings about such a move, which he said would result in "inconsistent settlements.." "Obviously it would be quicker, but I think it will be more costly," Scheidt said, noting that counties would use "private attorneys." . Scheidt indicated county -level handling of documents could lead to problems. Keeping all processes at the state level, "we know what the risks are;' he said. Opposition to moving responsibilities to counties came as well from the only county ad- ministrator present, Tammy Holden Scheidt, wife of executive director Paul Scheidt. "The counties would definitely want more money to do it," she said. But her strongest oppo- sition had to do with the program remaining fully a state - administered program. Easement offers, she said, "should all be reviewed in the same manner." ..Other changes under review by staff, Scheidt said, include obtaining certification of funds from the comptroller based on anticipated revenue and making round -one offers as soon as appraisals are received for each county, possibly reducing the time to settlement by two months. Withdrawing easement offers when landown- ers take too long to return needed information such as signatures and surveys, and having landowners submit applications directly to coun- ties instead of the state, are also options. Also, appraisers could be required to return appraisals within 45 to 60 days instead of the current 90 days allowed. "Delays are often the landowners' fault," Scheidt said. The subcommittee briefly reviewed county -ad- ministered programs, including those in Howard, Harford and Montgomery counties, and the program of Pennsylvania, which surpassed Mary- land in preserved acres this past fall. Information about those programs was provided in materials from the Maryland Department of Planning. The please turn to page 6 March 2001 Page 6 farmland preservation report. Maryland program looks to speed up Iegislative easement process and program continued from page 5 b r I efs .. . Pennsylvania Bureau of Fa -land Protection delegates technical and legal program responsibilities to the counties. However, some skepti- to Virginia ... A battle over reducing cism was apparent, as expressed by the chairperson. "Is the process quicker in Pennsylvania ?" Phyllis Kilby said. "We the state's personal property tax has left the state without a new budget for don't know if its a perception or reality:' the first time in history, and an executive order for every department California study confirms sellers to prepare for up to 15 percent in c cu s. The legislature an Gov. motives: love of the land and cash James G are divided on how much the state's hated "car tax" should be cut. The DAVIS, CA — According to a University of California study, farmers governor seeks $419 million in cuts to fund a 70 percent reduction in the tax. restrict their land through conservation easement programs because Land conservation funds were among the money is attractive and because they love their land. his first cuts. In the 57 -page report titled "California Farmers and Conservation in Oregon ... Measure 7, passed by Easements: Motivations, Experiences and Perceptions in Three Coun- a 53 percent of Oregon voters last fall, ties," researchers interviewed 46 landowners who either sold conserva- farmland restricted by a conservation and requiring government to pay landowners for curtail of tion easements or purchased property rights, has mend to easement. The study was conducted in Marin, Sonoma and yolo counties by violate the state constitution (see story this issue). the University of California Agricultural Issues Center and by the 413 would s . up- to Maryland ... HB up- University of California Cooperative Extension, Marin County. element counties' participation in The purchase of easements is funded in Sonoma County with a state program with one -time awards of quarter -cent sales tax approved by voters in 1990. Since the early 19805 between $50,000 to twice the amount the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT) has funded easements with there rejected sales tax a county provides as matching funds not originating from the state agricul- state government and foundation grantsNoters measures for funding easements in 1992 and 1996, but MALT is gaining tural transfer tax in FY2003 compared to FY 2001. HB 502 would require mu- significant funding through a capital campaign. yolo County ease- ments are paid in large part by development mitigation requirements nicipalities to establish a TDR program when rezoning land that is outside of a approved by the City of Davis in 1995 and by state grants. county's designated growth area from While landowners said they were motivated by a preservation ag to residential use; HB 646 would ideal, family needs, and the monetary reward, 41 of the 46 put the provide an income tax break on gains after sale or donation'of'an preservation ideal at the top of the list. "The ranch was something that I had put together over the years," recognized easement; HB 681 would allow a state said one Sonoma County landowner who was quoted in the publica- income tax credit for easements donated, to MET or to MALPF only, for M tion. "I wanted it to remain in productive agriculture, not houses." Easement payments received in the three counties ranged from the amount which the fair market value prior to the easement exceeds $1300 to $3000 per acre. Farmers said they used the money for settling the after value. HB 988 would allow estates, paying off debt and improving their operations. Some also said landowners to request a release from planning for the transfer of the farm and avoiding inheri tance tax was an easement at any time, removing the 25 -year waiting period. please turn to page 7 March 2001 Page 7 farmland preservation report Jeff Everett is the new administrator for the Howard County farmland preservation program, beginning March 5. Everett comes from the Valley Conservation Council in Staunton, Va. The Howard program has $15 million in bond funds available. , Donna Mennitto is working as a consultant to Rural Legacy sponsor counties and land trusts. She left her post with the Mid - Atlantic office of the American Farmland Trust in January. In Rhode Island ... A takings case before the U.S. Supreme Court involves a Rhode Island beach property the owner claims has been devalued by environmental restrictions. Owner Anthony Palazzolo is seeking $3.1 million in compensation for the beach houses he wanted to build on 18 acres of wetlands that are 'below mean high water," according to the state. Palazzolo had not applied to build up to two homes on the part of the property that may have been allowed. In Pennsylvania ... HB 705 would place a $200 million bond for farmland preservation on the next ballot; HB 101 would allow counties to'use state funds to purchase easements on entire tracts that cross county lines. . Also, by amendment to HB101_ by Rep. Raymond Bunt Jr. of Montgomery ''County, the state program cap of $10;000 per acre for-use of state dollars would be lifted. On March 14 the Bureau of Farmland Protection and Evergreen Capital Advisors Inc. will host a meeting for landowners on the use of installment purchase agreements at the Lancaster Farm and Home Center. Gov. Tom Ridge announced his commitment "to remain the nation's uncontested leader in farmland preser- vation," when announcing 23 additional farms approved for preservation at the most recent state board meeting. More than $70 million in county and state funding is proposed for the upcoming year. continued from page 8 important.in their decisions. "A big problem we face is inheritance tax, "said a Marin County landowner. "The land has escalated in value way beyond what we're able to pay. I'm 60 years old and in a position to be both inheriting it and passing it on. I would have to sell the farm and that's the last thing I want to do." The study included a few landowners who said they had pur- chased preserved land and found it affordable. "It was like a gift from God," said a Marin County landowner. "Otherwise we couldn't have afforded it." A few landowners said they were bothered by some aspects of preservation. These included annual monitoring and certain deed restrictions such as limits on additional housing. The report recommends that easement programs clarify and expedite easement negotiations, offer more information to people who buy easement - restricted parcels, conduct parcel monitoring as a cooperative process and involve landowners in a variety of conservation activities. The report was written by Ellen Rilla, director of Marin County UC Cooperative Extension, and Al $.okolow, a public policy special- ist with the UC Cooperative Extension and associate director of the Agricultural Issues Center. The research was supported by the nonprofit Great Valley Center under a grant from the California Department of Conserva- tion, Division of Land Resource Protection. The publication is the first of three Agricultural Issues Center research reports on easement programs. The second will examine the organization and performance of local easement programs throughout California and the third will discuss prospects for the technique in the Central Valley. The publication is available free on the University of California Ag Issues Center website. Contact: Al Sokolow, 916 752 -8916. professional resources ... Job Postings Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, Administrator II, Position in the state Department of Agriculture serving as Maryland Agricultural. Land Preservation'staff to the Rural Legacy Program. Works with administrative office in the review of applications submitted by local jurisdictions for certification of please continue to page 8 fnrmltynti rtrcecnin +inn rcr-snrf March new county agricultural land preservation programs. Assists in the application for federal and private grants. Salary: $38,236 - $57,162. Closing date March 16. For application and qualifications call 410 841 -5840. Piedmont Environmental Council (VA), Director of Land Conservation.- PEC seeks an experienced land trust professional to manage its land conservation pro- gram. Responsibilities include: oversight of staff of seven; management of $700,000 + budget; identification of key properties and development of strategies for protec- tion; negotiation of conservation real estate transactions; management of five to 10 revolving funds for transaction work; and development of strategies to promote the donation of conservation easements. Requirements include six or more years of working in land conservation, experience negotiating sophisticated real estate transactions, and prior experience managing staff and budgets. Must have excellent March 18 - 20, Hershey, PA: Land Use in Pennsylvania Conference, by Pennsylvania Growing Smarter. Call 800 822 -3063 or see_ www.dced.state.pa.us. May 9 - 11, Greensburg, PA: Preservation Pennsylvania Annual Conference, see www.preservadonpa.org or call 717 234 -231 • • • • - communication skills.Please mail a cover letter and resume to Jennifer Perkins, It is unlawful to reproduce this PEC, PO Box 460, Warrenton, VA 20188, or fax to 540 - 349 -9003. Email - publication and distribute it to jperkins @pecva.org. Web site: www.pecva.org (posted 3/2/01) other locations or agencies. if you have a special need, contact Upper Valley Land Trust (NH), Land Conservation Project Manager- Organized, the publisher. outgoing individual to manage transactions involving working farms, forests, and natural areas. Part-time (minimum 24 hours /week) or full -time employee will special- ize in purchase of development rights transactions, working closely with landowners and funders. Qualifications: Substantive experience with project management, • excellent communication skills, proven ability to work with diverse clients; familiarity with land conservation, real estate transactions; proven interview, negotiation skills and familiarity with appraisal issues; experience evaluating farm, forest resources, Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! and /or experience with farm business plans, business financing for farm and forestry operations; familiarity with natural resource inventories, maps, land management Can't find it on the web? Need a plans; experience preparing budgets, grant applications. Comfortable working alone, quick answer for an update or to traveling extensively within region. Knowledge of NH /VT agricultural and forestry lead a discussion? Call or email issues, land use regulations, tax policies and Upper Valley helpful. Resume, cover us. We're faster, friendlier and letter before March 9 to Annette Lorraine, Conservation Director, Upper Valley Land smarter than the web! Trust, 19 Buck Rd., Hanover, NH. (posted 2/9/01) Brandywine Conservancy (PA), Senior Land Use Planner- To provide land use/ environmental planning assistance to municipalities. Responsibilities: 1) Writing I comprehensive /open space plans; 2) Drafting regulatory zoning /subdivision ordi- nances; 3) Integration of innovative techniques for resource protection with growth management; 4) Presentation of technical ideas /information to government officials, development interests and citizens groups. Excellent written /verbal communication skills, positive /energetic attitude, ability to work on fast paced teams. Knowledge of Phone — PA municipal government structure /legislation expected. Proven organizational skills (410) 692 -2708 valuable to meet multiple deadlines. Bachelor's degree: regional planning, geogra- phy, environmental science, landscape architecture, or related disciplines required. Advanced degree desirable. Five years of local or state planning experience — FOX — required. Knowledge of GIS application. AICP preferred. Competitive compensation/ (410) 692 -9741 benefits. Conservancy is equal opportunity employer. Interested candidates send cover letter, resume with references; and salary requirements to Marti Coats, Email Environmental Management Center; Brandywine Conservancy, PO Box 141, Chadds Ford, PA 19317 or- fax'to (610) 388 -1575. (posted 01/26/01) gowersPub@aol.com For oth0 positions with land trusts, see the Land Trust Alliance Web Site at r Postal Service -- www.ita.org. Bowers Publishing Inc. 900 La Grange Rd. Conferences &Workshops Street MD 21154 Farmers head to Raleigh http://www,hendersonvillenews.com/news/news.asp?ID=1249 pace, m want to pen FREE person e-card . March 13, 2001 k Farmers head to Raleigh +� ,.. fFbr Rc�6ro By Jim Wooldridge Times -News Staff Writer March 12, 2001 �M,�nafrt� �alpr�dd� ` Y At least 12 members of the Henderson Count Farm Bureau will join about 800 others in Raleigh on Tuesday for an all -day meeting with the General Assembly. a� lum"t "We're 'not going to push an new issues," said count resident Larry g g P Y Y P The trend continued between 1992 and 1997, when the state lost an additional 781,500 acres of farm and forest to bulldozers and paving machines. At the same time, the average age of Tar Heel farmers increased to nearly 60 years. Young men and women are discouraged from making agriculture a career, the bureau said, because of low profits, 1 of 2 3/13/20018:25 AM armers head to Raleigh Home http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/news/news.asp?ID=1249 high land prices and the high cost of starting in farming. "As development has spread across the state, elected officials have come to realize the associated costs and burdens," a Farm Bureau publication states. "A growing populace requires serious investment in roads, schools, water and sewer, police and fire services." The policy statement pointed to the interrelation of farmland and tourism, the two main economic engines in North Carolina. The state, it said, needs open space to develop full power on both engines. Info Desk Email Guestbuok Copyright @2001 Times -News Search b VYeafi�e:r �,7z of 2 3/13/20018:25 AM