Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
APB agenda 082003
COUNTY OF ORANGE E,NVIRONMEN'T AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM i r To: Agricultural Preservation Board x� David Stancil, ERC Director 0 From: Date: August 12, 2003 Re: August 20th Meeting r ni -nco finrri attached the agenda for our next meeting scheduled for: At this meeting we will review the plans (and opportunities for APB involvement in the September 19 -20 ""Orange County Ag ricultural Heritage Festival, featuring the Festival of the Autumn Moon" and review previous ideas Agricultural Center and discuss possible new concepts (as requested on June 1 Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2590) by Monday, August 18, if you will be unable to attend. Copies: Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Mike Lanier, Ag Economic Development Specialist AGENDA August 20, 2003 Planning and Agricultural Center Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 7:30 p.m. Time Page AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 :35 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:40 01 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — (June 18) 7:45 0 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Orange County Agricultural and Heritage Festival, Featuring the Festival of the Autumn Moon (September 19 -20) — Attachment 1 b. Agricultural Center — Previous Ideas, New Concepts (please see Attachment 2) 9:00 5. ITEMS FOR DECISION (none) 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. "Farmland Preservation Report" b. "Open Space Enhances Nearby Property Values" c. "Land Use Law Report" d. "Golden Leaf Annual Report 2002" e. "NC Farmland In Transition" f. "The Impact of Open Space and Potential Local Disamenities on Residential Property Values in Berks County, Pennsylvania" g. "Triangle GreenPrint Outreach Report DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD June 18, 2003 PRESENT: Tony Kleese, Elizabeth Walters, Kim Roberts, Marty Mandell, Rodney Recor Gordon Warren, Noah Ranells Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, and staff Carol Melton. ABSENT: Bob Strayhorn, Louise Tate, Don Johnson and Whit Morrow GUEST: Kimberly Siran, Environment & Resource Conservation Design Specialist ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Kleese called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. due to the members' participation in an earlier session to explore ideas for value -added options and alternative markets hosted by the Cooperative Extension Service and Economic Development Commission. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Stancil said that he would update the APB in August on the Farm Festival activities. ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 2003 MOTION: Warren moved approval of the May 21St minutes with noted corrections. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Presentation - "A Systematic Approach to Rural Land Conservation in Orange County, NC" by Kimberly Siran, Open Space Design Specialist Siran gave an overview of her 1997 Master's Thesis, focused on four Orange County Farms and interest in large scale landscape issues with the abundance of agricultural land being lost to sprawling suburban development. She described how conservation land planning techniques could preserve the natural characteristics of the rural land, while allowing changes in land use and guiding development to be integrated with the existing landscape of the area to allow a balance between land use change and conservation. Physiographic context (streams topography and vegetation), ecological context (soil, plant species and hydrology) and historical and cultural context (identifying settlement patterns, social forces and political events instrumental in shaping the landscape) were noted as three elements to use to identify a broad Draft -1- area as a rural landscape. A case study of farms revealed that the county's rural landscape has an existing structure. Certain areas were left vegetated; usually in wet areas along a stream corridor. Higher ground with well - drained soils were usually cleared and used for crops. Understanding the functions performed on the land allows for a systematic conservation plan to be developed. A conservation plan provides for a planned management of the rural landscape while following the traditional structure, which has been realized generation after generation of using the land. Siran described the land use unit process for analysis and a "land unit" (as being the crown of land between streams of the same order). The land unit process follows the farm's description and can be described as looking at water - collecting and water - gathering slopes as the organizing structure of rural land development. This approach provides a way to evaluate the land using its physical characteristics, while quantitatively measuring the characteristics. Siran described an overlay process using data available for each factor evaluated, such a s soil, slope, topography and vegetation that assigns values to these factors after the maps are combined. The values assigned reflect the factor's contribution to the structure of the rural landscape. The overlays are used produce a results map. The "results map" is a combination of the land unit process and the farm description, which led to the conservation map of rural lands. The conservation map reflects the qualities which are instrumental in maintaining the county's rural landscape structure. Siran described that the land unit process is important because: • It parallels the same process the farmer has used to develop their land into an agriculture landscape. • Agriculture has always been a strong force in the county, as a land use but also economically and socially. • The land unit process recognizes this because it works with the traditional land structure of the county. • This allows the process to be used for more than acquiring conservation land; it also can be used to provide a systematic approach for accommodating new development into the traditional structure. • The land unit process of analysis is systematic and therefore easily replicated. • It is a systematic because it uses factual data on the lands natural characteristics, such as stream channels, soil, topography, slope, and vegetation. • This data is available for the entire county and this allows it be applied to other farms throughout the county. • The ease of replicating this process allows it to be easily regulated and used as a planning tool for the county. Members thanked Siran and asked if she could help with identifying agricultural priority areas later this year, and asked her to be involved in future agricultural areas discussions. ITEM #4b: Priority Setting for Fall 2003 Agendas Stancil briefly reviewed a "straw" set of priorities based on previous discussions. Draft k -2- Jacobs asked the APB to focus on a plan for an Agricultural Center that he could use to present at a work session in late August or early September. Mandell suggested that the APB members get all information ready including budget needs for the mentioned capital improvements plan. Members discussed that there was a previous proposal done about fifteen years ago and asked to see that information. Kleese suggested inviting Fletcher Barber to the next meeting with the possibility that he could recall information about the first agricultural center proposal. Members agreed to have a concrete proposal late August/early September. Stancil reviewed the following previously planned priorities: ➢ Plans for September 19 -20 Orange County Agricultural and Heritage Festival ➢ Agricultural Priority Area Designation recommendations (September) ➢ Proposed Revisions to Voluntary farmland Preservation program ordinance ➢ Proposed Agricultural Resource Center (as per discussions) ➢ Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2004 -05, farmland preservation objectives (Sept/Oct.) ➢ Agricultural Element of the Comprehensive Plan ➢ Public outreach programs ➢ Program to address approved but unsigned VA Districts ➢ Agricultural economic development initiatives Members discussed the Agricultural Preservation Element memo language changes to strike the word preservation and change the subject to include the desire to have a Agricultural Element included in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Members discussed the Historic Preservation Commission Element and wanted copies sent to them. Members discussed the Public Outreach idea of possibly meeting with the Cattlemen's Association this fall. Mandell suggested meeting with 4 -H program children or Junior Livestock group. Members agreed it is important to have booth at Farm Festival to address outreach on the school children day. Members want to decide in August on a schedule of volunteering for staffing the booth at the Festival and preparing presentation materials to use at the Festival. Stancil reviewed the board's discussion that the August agenda would include Agricultural Center discussions and Farm Festival activities. Ranells asked to have the developing agricultural priority areas maps on the fall agenda. Ranells stated that the conflict of tonight's meetings was atrocious and that someone needs to coordinate all agriculture calendars. It was noted that the APB calendar is scheduled in January for the entire year and that the other meeting was scheduled by someone else on the same evening as the APB regularly meets. Stancil agreed to talk to Cooperative Extension Service about coordinating calendars. Recor added that there was a master calendar to the Orange County farms website. Kleese summarized that urgent priorities are: ➢ Agricultural Center proposal, Draft -3- 4 ➢ Farm Festival activities plans, ➢ Agricultural priority areas designation recommendations. Members asked for staff to send the following list of information during the July break for members to have a chance to look at: • items pertaining to the Farm Festival activities, • previous agricultural center proposal, • Historic Preservation Element component of the Land Use Plan and, • Rural Character Study. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Draft lid ATTACHMENT # 1 MAU[ ORANGE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE FESTIVAL Featuring the FESTIVAL OF THE AUTUMN MOON September 19 -20, 2003 The concluding event of Orange County's year -long 250th anniversary festivities will celebrate the county's rich agricultural heritage. The Agricultural Heritage Festival will include historic crafts demonstrations, farming demonstrations, artists booths, children's games, a farmers' market, displays of antique farm equipment, music, and "A Taste of Orange" — locally - produced food prepared by local restaurants. The event will be held on the Blackwood Farm, a 150 -acre site near the corner of New Hope Church Road and Highway 86 south of Hillsborough. Classes of elementary school children will enjoy the festival on Friday, September 19th between 10 and 2. The festival will be open to the public on Saturday, September 20th from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Visitors must utilize off - premises park and ride lots, with free shuttles to the farm. Friday, jSeptember 19 On Friday,- elementary classes (Kindergarten through 4th grade) from both the Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools and Orange County Schools are invited to visit the Festival, transported by school buses. Activities on Friday will include farming and crafts demonstrations, historical interpreters, children's games, and animal demonstrations. Children are welcome to bring their lunches and picnic in the food tent. Saturday, September 20 Activity areas will include: History Tent • Agricultural heritage display provided by the Orange County Historical Museum • Oral history corner in which elders relate their stories and reminiscences • Interpreters for the following epochs — Native American (Occaneechee- Saponi); 1850s (Eno Soldiers Relief Society) ; and Turn of the 20th Century (Tobacco and Farmlife Museum) Children's Games and Game Tent • Interactive Station Games (walking stilts; wooden ring toss; wooden hoops; horseshoes; burlap sack races; jump rope; bocce) • Colonial Picture Dress Up Station • Kite - Making Station • Board Game Stations (checkers, chess and dominoes) • Hopscotch Station Artisan Tent • Spinners • Weavers • Indigo demonstration • Quilting • Chair caning • Wood shaving, tool making • Broom making Artisan Open Fire Area Molasses making • Apple cider press • Blacksmithing • Soap making • Candle making Farm Demonstrations • Butter churning • Cotton ginning • Tobacco tying • Corn shucking • Antique farm equipment display Animal Demonstrations • American Breeds Conservancy display • Sheep herding demonstration • Sheep sheering demonstration • Goat milking • Draught horses • Horse drawn hay cutting /raking • Pony rides • Petting zoo Festival of the Autumn Moon Contemporary crafters displaying and selling their wares Festival of the Autumn Moon Staged Music • Adelaide's Farm Band (bluegrass) • Carolina Catawallers (old time music) • Silver (harmonious folk) • Cane Creek Cloggers (traditional dance) • Joe Woodson (folk, cowboy) • Blues act (not yet confirmed) Farmers' Market Farmers from both the Carrboro and Hillsborough Farmers Markets have been invited A Taste of Orange Local restaurants will develop menus around what's available from local farmers and sell their delicacies. Seating will be available under a big top tent overlooking rolling pastures. Restaurants that regularly purchase Orange County farm products and that have expressed interest in participating include: • Acme • Barbecue Joint • Carolina Crossroads • Crooks Corner • Flying Burrito • Foster's Market • Four Square • James Pharmacy Restaurant • Lantern • Mama Dip's • Margaret's Cantina • Panzanella • Shaw's Family Kitchen • Spice Life Spice Street? Mapleview Dairy will have an ice cream cart as well. Soft drinks and water will be sold by the Orange County 250th Planning Committee to help offset costs of the celebration. Building Complex * No Access Permitted --- - - - - 2 99 TI 1. H01e Historic i 3. Milk House Stanback 2. Smokehouse Artisan Area Middle School 4. chicken House A Open Fire Crafts S. Corn Gib B. History Tent ;Children's 6. Milking Shed G Historic Artisans ; 7. Barn : Activities 8. Garage 9. Shed •n- O• - - -- , .SI'l 0i ,,.` 605." �A .... •. '. .Eratr�r ��-i s . New Hope :. B orchard Elementary Prl�ing�: School •' • C •O - ■ - s= Information ve B© ■ • ' . First Aid Station •6 9 _ ®---------- - - - - -• Entra '• •: ©� : ` Vendor' -�; • ------ • • : ` 4 r:€4 per. . Q; . - �► Farmers Market ui U .... -- = Farm '••'� '• � 1 � Equipment: 2 0 = 0... `.,Demonstrations;�•• °�"ft Autumn Moon _ , : to y7 ' ■ ■ � •,. � Sys Natural Seating Animal •+■ •.•, `•: ; Activities : - ` Music ' �o Singe m ,° G NO;; / ■ Toilet Facilities Recycling Center Not to Scale °The. HisoricBlackwoo . . a:: u'r: ri as t.2001 as - _:was, cq. ..i .:.....:.................... utufeCoian. ` ak5te_'TFe tYP -. p ope t s ot'ye .. en fate " pub�lc. Please respect fW �vstonc bulidings?;irld property during ty our ;`visit to the feS lval. .�No PaHarig nn Site N6 Smolan� .' No,Building Access_ . ,, , ; No:Pets No bkbhol ,, No Fishing :,. 'CCB;Bar�k, a co U Hillsborough co z � til„ A,j!��rStanbad� �. Middle 100I�, �1G�i�I�FiO� ® ©. lernea1 - P Farm r Festival GrJ�c► E'u6�r�ks :Rd :4 a. ® FPI �uba�ks Rd Chapel Hill N "1 ATTACHMENT # 2 RURAL EDUCATION CENTER The Rural Education Center will accommodate a number of agriculture and non - agriculture activities. This facility will serve an education /learning function which directly supports programs and laboratories of rural related County agencies. These agencies include Cooperative Extension Service, Soil and Water Conservation, Farmers' HomCAdministration, theCountyrForestry Stabilization and Conservation Service (AS ), nd Services. Activities that might be held at the Center include agricultural or environmental education programs, large meetings and /or livestock events. The proposed center may include an indoor animal show ring and arena, stockholding areas, livestock scales, and space for educational programs, rural heritage area, farmers' markeSelds to demonstrate good farming improvements include an orchard, small f practices, and environmental study areas. This project will be funded entirely with pay -as- you -go funds of S280,000. Annual operating costs are dependent on the type facility Constructed and the use of the facility. One option to offset building and site maintenance costs is to charge fees for use of the facility. PROJECT COSTS Land Design Construction Other TOTAL COSTS FUNDING SOURCES Pay -As- You -Go Bond Funds Grant Funds Fees TOTAL FUNDING ORANGE COUNTY THRU 1992 -93 1993.94 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996.97 TOTAL 1991 -92 so 530.000 530.000 0 0 0 525,000 5?5,000 0 0 0 0 5225,000 590,000 0 62.000 72.000 0 so 0 0 0 0 5145 000 5o 552,000 573,000 50 s0 5280,000 $145,000 s0 552.000 573.000 so so 5280,000 so 0 0 00 0 0 0 so so o 0 o so � 0 0 0 5145,000 so 562.000 573,000 s0 s0 5280.000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 1 9 COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 919- 732 -2196 919- 942 -8000 , FAX 919- 732 -7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 300, THE CENTER 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 919- 929 -7151 FAX 919- 929 -3892 ALONZO B. COLEMAN, JR. STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ March 2, 1990 ROGER B. BERNHOLZ Mr. John M. Link, Jr. GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE orange County Manager G. NICHOLAS HERMAN Post Office Box 8181 KIM K. STEFFAN NATHANIEL E. CLEMENT Hillsborough, North Carolina 2727 MARILYN E. TOME1 JOE L. WEBSTER TERRY G. HARN Re: Rural Education Center JANET B. DUTTON Of Counsel Dear John: BONNER D. SAWYER (1902 1972) Enclosed is the draft Rural Education Center document prepared by Fletcher and edited by me for our review next week. very truly yours, GEG /lsg Enclosure xc: Fletcher Barber, E. Gledhill jo u�3C�ff4 RURAL EDUCATION CENTER Implementation of the Orange County Rural Education Center Feasibility Report as modified by the Rural Education Center Task Force will require the acquisition and development of a 40 -60 acre tract of land. The Center will accommodate a number of agriculture and non - agriculture activities. Facilities to be constructed at the Center include holding pens for livestock, a large area meeting hall and a show ring for livestock shows with rollout bleachers. Also planned are a small stage, judging area, functional kitchen which could be used by caterers, bathrooms, small changing rooms and small office spaces. Activities that might be planned for the Center include livestock shows, banquets and meetings attended by 500 people. The second phase of the Center plan is to move all Orange County agriculture - related agencies including the Agricultural Extension Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), Soil and Water Conservation (SCS), Farmers' Home Administration (FmHA) and the county forester. Housing these agencies will require a new building or perhaps expansion of first phase facilities. Present Orange County facilities on Revere Road were neither designed to accommodate the volume of traffic nor to provide the atmosphere or land area to conduct effective hands -on educational demonstrations and programs. 1 I 1 11 The Rural Education Center will provide more suitable space for the following educational and county programs, just to name a few: Demonstration Plots This area will be developed by Agricultural Extension Service as needed to demonstrate the latest varieties and management practices in forestry, turf, greenhouse production, fruit tree, vegetable production, forage management, tobacco and irrigation practices. A small pond will be developed for stripped bass or. catfish production and to demonstrate weed control in farm ponds. Environmental Study Area An environmental study area is planned using wooded acreage around a lake. A nature trail is planned to be used by school children to study the environment and its impacts on nature and wildlife. Rural Heritage Area An area with some type of relocated historical building is planned that could help explain agriculture or rural life. This would tie in well for school children with the environmental study area. Farmers' Market A small pole -type building is planned to be used by local producers to sell fresh vegetables and home -grown commodities from their pick -up. Outdoor Horse /Livestock Show Area A horse show facility is planned which would include a grading area sufficient for a 120' x 240' ring with an announcer's stand, P.A. system and portable bleachers. Also, adequate parking for horse 2 11 a trailers is needed. This area will be convertible to accommodate graded cattle sales, and junior dairy and livestock shows. Due to the lack of space and facilities, Orange County is unable to host many regional or district meetings and activities. Consequently, Orange citizens must go to other areas to participate. A Rural Education Center will recruit programs to the county and will provide space to utilize the latest research methods, as well as help Orange County recruit volunteers that are willing to serve if space and equipment is provided. 3 w e t J U lj;p ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK /HORTICULTURE MARKET AND RURAL'EDUCATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTED,TO THE ,.ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS f' ;�' {tiY . • MAY 19, 1987 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: .STEPHEN HALKIOTIS, CHAIRMAN CHRIS BEST MARY ANNE BLACK DEAN DETER BARRY JACOBS ALBERT KITTRELL KAREN MCADAMS W. E. MAINOUS BARNEY PITTMAN SYLVIA PRICE lei It Orange County Livestock /Horticulture Market and Rural Education Center Feasibility Study Committee Report The impending loss of, the Hillsborough Livestock Market will represent a major financial blow to Orange County's already hard - pressed.livestock producers. Its loss will also have a major economic impact on our local economy insofar as the several million dollars paid out for livestock at the market might be lost to this community. Economists agree that as money flows through the local economy, it turns over several times, and the loss of the livestock market would represent a much larger financial loss to the County's economy than the sums spent at the market. Drawing upon the historical precedent for Orange ,County's involvement in assuring a local livestock market and the County's obvious interest in the financial well -being of our County's farmers in particular- and in our local economy in general, we propose that the Orange County Board of Commissioners take action to keep a livestock facility in the County. What began as a committee to study the feasibility` of maintaining a livestock sale facility in orange County eventually matured into a group which saw the financial necessity of providing a facility that would not be dependent only on one component for its existence. A livestock sale facility can't exist by itself, but it can be a viable component of a multifaceted facility which would provide a number of services to all citizens in Orange County. From this need to look at a multipurpose facility, there was born the "ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK /HORTICULTURE MARKET /RURAL EDUCATION CENTER." , The attached documents support the following recommendations: I. A. livestock sale facility can be an integral component of a multipurpose facility in Orange County. A livestock sale facility can't stand by itself. (See Attachment A, Standaert Report, and Attachment B, Responses to Survey.) II. There is a strong interest in establishing a farmer's market in northern Orange County. (See Attachment B and Survey Sample, Attachment K.) Survey results: 165 "yes", 5 "no",, 3 "maybe". III. There is a need for a large meeting room that would be available to County government agencies which currently have to rent such facilities. This meeting room could also serve as a gallery and exhibition site for items related to the. rich agricultural history heritage of Orange County. (See Attachment C, Report by Albert Kittrell of County Expenditures for Meeting Rooms. work Mr. nd Mrs. Quentin Patterson are most willing to help on the gallery collection of agricultural items pertinent to the history of Orange County.) 7� IV. There are numerous events which could be scheduled for the facility which would not only make it,economically self- sustaining, but would also generate'more dollars spent in Orange County by guests and participants. (See Attachment D, compiled by Recreation and Parks Department, Agricultural Extension Service and 'local agriculture and horticulture teachers.) V. It a deal for a makes great of sense to plan now facility that could provide -a safe firing range for all law enforcement agencies in Orange County. (See Attachments E. F. G and H.) A central locations for u rural fire departments to train could be achieved easily by adding a tower and burn house for firefigher training. It would serve as a great civil defense facility. VI. It is a "given" that any site and any and all buildings would belong forever to Orange County and would not be subject to any transfer. A Board of Directors with representation from the County Board of Commissions would serve as a governing structure. (See Attachment I.) VII. The Chairman of the Feasibility Study Committee proposes that an increase in the property tax of 1 cent for one year be considered as a possible funding source for the site and necessary buildings. The Chairman of this committee further recommends that should some benefactor come forward with a gift of land that could possibly serve 'as a site for this multipurpose facility, the Orange County Board of Commissioners should consider naming this facility in honor of this patron. The estimated cost for the candA (ca. 40 acres), buildings and equipment iecessary to operate such a facility is approximately $340,000. The Orange County Livestock Market Association would also need to raise capital of $200,000 to operate the market and meet the requirements of the Federal Livestock Marketing Act. To this end, the Orange County Livestock Market Association would sell stock in the Association. Additional Attachments: Attachment J, Economic Development Commission Briefing on Livestock Market Attachment L, Preliminary Sketch of the Proposed Facility 7� AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE Extension Economics and Business Box 8109 Raleigh, N. C. 27695 -8109 April 22, 1987 Bill Kous Karen cAdams Orange County Extension Service Agricultu'ral.Bldg. 109. Court St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Bill and Karen. ATTACHMENT A North Carolina State Uniuersit; School of Agriculture and Life Science Enclosed.you will find the completed version of the feasibi- lity study for an Orange County Livestock market. Karen, if you ha%-e ar.y further changes or additions please tell me and 1 will incorporate them. Please note a change in the revenue scale for the Siler City market. I used their 1986 schedule in the draft and during the meeting on April 21, 1987. A question about the level of these commissions at that.meeting caused me to go back and check With the Siler City market about their 1987 schedule. I found a significant increase in their fee scale and have incorporated it in this new version. The change reduces the projected loss to the new Hillsborough market by $1 per animal unit. The expected revenue remains negative, however. The breakeven volume is also reduced, but now is much closer to historical volume levels of the old Hillsborough sale. This new result makes the facility more-feasible with breakeven volumes in an attainable range for an aggressive manager. I apologize for the mistake in the draft and urge you to share this information with those present at the meeting.yester- day. �. Sincerely, i am es E. Standaert t Cooperative Extension ITork in Agriculture and Home Economics MT and KC State Universities, 100 Counties and U.S. Department of Agricu t FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AN ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK AUCTION MARKET by ® 7 James E. Standaeit, Ag Economist Karen'Kckdams, County Agent, Orange County North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service April 20, 1987 Is FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK AUCTION MARKET DATE: April 22, 1987 Background The livestock auction market fa- cility in Hills- borough, N.C., owned by Goldkist, Inc., will cease to operate under its present contract on June 30, 1987. On that date, DCA General of Raleigh, who has bought the land on which the facili- ty stands, may exercise its right to take possesion of, the facility. The loss of these facilities in Orange County will impose hardship on certain livestock producers for whom the Hillsborough market was the best alternative. They could experience increased transport and shrink casts and express the fear that reduced competition in the area will allow market operators to charge higher marketing fees. As their representative, the Orange County-Livestock Association is interested in looking at auction market facility alternatives to be located somewhere in Orange County. The purpose of this report is to present a profitability statement for a feasible alternative auction market site in Orange County. The sponsors for this report are the the Orange County Livestock Association and the Orange County Extension Service. They have reason to believe such a report will give evidence that the construction of a new market can be justified. The also have reason to believe that Orange County may supply the land and structures for the new market, which then may be able to operate under favorable cost conditions as did the'old Hills- borough market. Focus of Report. This report will present 1) estimates of the size of animal populations and auction market services within a 50 mile radius of Hillsborough, 2) an analysis of the the costs and returns that could be expected to be earned by a new auction market facility located near Hillsborough, and 3) a discussion of the factors required for successful operation of a new market in this area. LE I L9 EXAMINATION OF THE DEMAND FOR AUCTION MARKET SERVICES IN THE NORTH CENTRAL PIEDMONT Animal Populations. Figure 1 presents a map of the North Central Piedmont area including a circle with a 50 mile radius around Hillsbprough, N.C. incribed on it. Table 1 presents 1986 estimates of numbers of milk cattle, beef cattle, and all hogs for the area enclosed by the circle. Table 2 presents 1986 sales of animal units for the five major auction markets within the enclosed area. TABLE 1. Animal populations for the North Central Piedmont area, by-animal specie, 1986. L1 �j Category Milk Cows Beef Corns Hogs Horses -------------------7------------------------------------------- a Animal Population Jan 1, 1986 27,800 64,100 119,963 35,987 b Yearly output 23,630 48,076 208,137 - -- c Animal Units 111,350 Yearly output is the stream of animals available to be sold during the year. Under a stable herd size, the calving rate is a good estimate of the number of animals sold in any one year. Milk cows calving rate is .85, beef, .75. Flogs includes numbers of breeding swine, feeder pigs and top hogs. The state proportion of hog inventory which is market hogs and pigs is .855. Since market .hogs and pigs are produced twice a year, yearly output from hog inventory is twice the number of hogs and pigs Horses includes adults and foals. b One animal unit is one cow,, one calf, two top hogs or sows, or six feeder pigs. Horses are not included. Since the inventory numbers do specify of hogs by age, it was assumed that the proportion of feeder pigs to mature hogs in the population was the same as were sold through the five auction markets in the area. The resulting hog and pig inventory number was converted to animal units by dividing 5.25 into the inventory number. L1 �j WI co 1� J� T O w ca u L w O Z w b C O d tz w iJ u U id w O Z M 41 d 14 w' O rl u u d x u O tJ fA 0 a w a u H W 0 O i.i m W u M O 2 O 0 21 TABLE 2. Volume of animals units sold through auction markets in the - North - Cenral - Piedmont - area, -by - auction_ location, _1986. - - - - -- Siler Hills- Danville South City Borough Oxford Va. Boston,Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Volume of animal unit sold, 1986 Weekly markets 143,468 13,460 10,424 7,534 16,763 Special sales 3,611 31150 2,146 none none a Average per week 2,775 .327 237 151 335 a Number of weekly and special sales per year: S.C. cattle 51, hogs 50, pigs 49, special 3; Hills. cattle 51, hogs 50, pigs 23, special 3; Oxford cattle 49, hogs 48, pigs 48, special 2. Dan- ville cattle 50, hogs 50; S.B. cattle 50, hogs 50. The number of animals sold through the five principal auctions in the North Central Piedmont area is 197,406. This exceeds the amount available for sale in the area by more than 86,000. Either animals are imported into the area to be sold, or the yearly output numbers in Table 1 are underestimated due to multiple sales of some animals. The Hillsborough market is third in size in the area. Producers now using Hillsborough to market their cattle and hogs have available the markets in the other four locations. Virginia does not conduct feeder pig sales at their locations. Hills- borough feeder pigs would have available only_the auction markets in Siler City and Oxford. Except for the volume of special sales, it does not appear that capacities in the four other sale locations would limit absorption of Hillsborough's marketings should it cease to exist. Operating Expenses Annual operating costs are given in Table 4. Annual n capacity auction market operating costs for a 500 animal unit amount to $100,132. On a per animal unit basis this is $5.78. All costs were estimated icollaboration with The orange TheOrange County Livestock Associatioon n in Extension Service. Expected revenues Table 5 gives annual expected revenues for different gross since it is UNIT 4 EXPECTED COSTS AND RETURNS FOR A 500 ANIMAL AUCTION MARKET mately $6.00 per animal unit. Investment Costs With average weekly sales equivalent to 70 percent of peak 500 animal unit weekly capacity, it was determined that a be budgeted. Table 3 facility located in Orange County would life and annual costs for an administra- gives investment costs, structure, plumbing, electrical, water tion building, support treatment and roadways. Total building costs are $182,605. Total Equipment costs sales are $61,500. In addition a bond in the value of one week's This amounts to must be held in an escrow type account. Annual Investment costs are $15,725, for equipment $98,100. only, without the building and $33,986 with the building. Operating Expenses Annual operating costs are given in Table 4. Annual n capacity auction market operating costs for a 500 animal unit amount to $100,132. On a per animal unit basis this is $5.78. All costs were estimated icollaboration with The orange TheOrange County Livestock Associatioon n in Extension Service. Expected revenues Table 5 gives annual expected revenues for different gross since it is sale volumes. The 5iler City schedule is used e f representative and is approxis on market revenue hetaveraeeeaucti . sold in the area. T, g mately $6.00 per animal unit. Expected profitability the annual costs with the average expected revenue be earned .Comparing for an animal unit, it can be seen that a loss will included in annual cost or regardless whether the building is building and equal operating costs, the not. Given the same size to realize a weekly volume of 364 animal new market would, need for the building and 422 animal units if the units without paying is to be for out of auction receipts. building paid L] Ll . a w 2 i) Table 3. Estimated investment costs, life, and annual costs in buildings, water system, Waste treatment, roadways and equipment for a 500 animal unit auction market in NC, 1987 Investment Annual Item cost Life cost Building Administration Bldg 33,752 20 3,375.20 Support structure 135,990 20 13,599.00 - Water well, plumbing, 12,863 20 1,286.30 electrical, etc. 182,605 18,260.50 Total Equipment 1,500.00 Tractor and equipment 10,000 10 10 2,250.00 Mobile Home 15,000 1,500 10 225.00 High pressure washer Pick -up and gooseneck 20,000 10 3,000.00 Office equipment 2,500 10 375.00 75.00 Public address system 500 10 10 300.00 Water heater and rest room 2,000 1,500 10 225.00 Squeeze chute Scale and weight display 8,500 10 1,275.00 Total 61,500 9,225.00 2,500.00 Property tax 4,000.00 Insurance Bond (one weeks sales) 989100 15,725.00 Total on equip., tax, ins. 159,600 Total with buildings 33,985.50 Anual fixed cost per animal unit at capacity $1.28 with building $ without building .59 Annual fixed cost per animal unit at 1986 Hillsborough Yolume with building $1.96. without building $ .91 Depreciation and annual interest (10%) only. w Annual operating expenses Table 4. Annual operating expenses for a 500 animal unit auction market, _NC, _ 1987__________________ _______________________________ Labor 20.000 Manager Office manager (part -time) 16,000 Assistant manager 15,000 Part -time help 26,000 77,000 Total .Labor 10,000 Auctioneer Utilities 1,764 Electricity $147 /mo 1,884 Telephone 157 /mo 684 Gas 57 /mo 4,332 Total utilities 2,000 Supplies Repairs and Maintenance 1,500 Buildings 2,300 Equipment 3,800 Total repairs and maintenance 2,000 Bedding 1,000 Feed Total annual operating expense 100,132. Operating expense per animal unit at 1986 hillsborough volume $5.78 Total annual expense per animal unit at 1986 Hillsborough volume $7.74 with building S6_69== ===== Without - building = = =__- 9 y 2 1 Expected revenue per annimal unit. Table 5. Revenue scale for Siler City sale. 1987. Revenue Scale Gross Sales Dollarx per head up to $50 2.00 $51 - $100 3.00 $101 — $150 4.00 $151 — $250 5.00 $251 — $350 6.00 $351 — $500 7.00 $501 — S650 8.00 $651 — up 10.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The average animal unit is, defined as Worth $300 when sold. At this level of gross - ,sales each animal unit can be expected, to bring $6.00 in auction market sale revenue. 20 DISCUSSION OF FACTORS REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF AUCTION MARKETS The Hillsborough market has operated since 1941. Besides the longevity of the market, which has operated at an average volume of around 300 - 325 animal units per week, there is little evid.ence as to its profitability over that period. Given its longevity, one would have to assume that the market was at least earning its operating cost on its owners books. Under current cost conditions, it is unlikely that. a new market will make a positive profit because costs are higher now at average volumes. The only way. profits can be increased would be to increase the volume sold, or increase the tariff on each animal without losing volume. The major operating cost in any auction market is remunera- tion for labor. In this case labor exceeds 75% of total opera- ting cost. Cost savings may be possible in this area if some portion of labor time can be utilized in other income earning employment. The possibility of linking the auction market with a farmer's market /horse arena or other facility may provide oppurtunities for labor sharing. The salary of the manager is $20,000 in the budget ' above . This is probably too low to attract a person with the skills necessary to do the job. A major task of the manager will be to. first reestablish, and then increase, the volume of trade necessary for profitable operation, requiring good communication and negotiating skills. A salary scheme which gives incentive to increase volume would be the best alternative. A cost not accounted for in the operating budget is litiga- tion expense associated with prosecution of writers of bad checks, or the expense associated with credit searches. It is. unknown what these expenses might be. Certainly, they are worrisome to- every auction market operator and require the ability to make astute appraisal of character. i i i i i i r y y i. 27 REFERENCES Schupp, Alvin. The Costs of Operating Livestock Auctions in Louisiana. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, DAE Research Report No. 652, May 1986. NCDA. Agricultural Statistics North Carolina. North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. No. 159. Oct, 1986. a ATTACHMENT B 0. 2� 1 RESPONSES TO MARKET /EDUCATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY POSITIVE COMMENTS 1. Much needed! (mentioned twice) 2. "I feel there is a great need for this facility. More research should be done to advance toward this project." 3. "I think there should be a strong study made, and act real soon." 4. "Yes we do need this facility and I support it." 5. "The present market has been a valued part of our community for many years. It is needed by our producers and the alternatives to a local market are too expensive and time consuming to benefit our struggling livestock producers." 6. "I am in full support of this facility. This area can not afford to have a market far away." 7. "I think it is badly needed. I also think it should be managed by a different group of people with the farmers of Orange Co. as their first priority and not themselves." S. "I think, if built, it should also have different management than existing market." 9. "A great idea. Would like to help in any way I.can. The museum idea is wonderful and a benefit to the livestock market." 10. "We need a facility like this desperately. Many organizations and functions could utilize a facility of this nature." 11. "Orange County really needs this facility. The expanded use beyond a livestock'market opens up all kinds of possibilities." 12. "Sounds like a good idea." 13. "A very good idea." (mentioned twice) 14. "Orange County needs a livestock market because it is to far to Siler City. ". 15. "This type of facility is long overdue. However top management is needed to be successful." '16. "Since the present livestock market will be closing, such a facility is needed and would be beneficial for the County., 17. "I would purchase some stock or bonds." 18. "We think this would be a wonderful thing to have come about. It certainly would be utilized. both by seller and buyer. Quality vegetables are grown locally. A bit more could be planted to have to sell and make extra earnings for families with children who make the effort, also for Senior Citizens who, do raise beautiful gardens and always have excess of vegetables. The buyers have to go a long way to buy at farm direct produce. They have only Super Markets to depend on. All users of buildings mentioned above would seem progressive, needful and likely to be used by surrounding communities. .19. "I think the multi - purpose agricultural facility would be an access(sic) to Orange County. 20. "Will help in any way I can." 21. "I think the first priority should be towards the livestock market." 22. "I think the study committee should have a couple of full -time 2 farmers on it. I see you don't have any. A part -time farmer doesnikt know how hard it is to make a full -time living out of it. 23. "I think there is a definite need for something such as this" 24. "We think it would be of real value for the area." 25. "Good work" 26. "Note: I am not an Orange Co. resident but I would like to see such a facility anyway" 27. "We would like to see a new multi- purpose facility built in Northern Orange County, a public - private facility under new management. 28. "Sounds good" 29. "I would like very much to see a livestock market in Orange County because transporting livestock to other locations would provide a hardship. 30. "If possible to locate on road accessible to South Orange population and include "Farmer's Market" type service, very good idea as explained in letter above." 31. "Facility of this type is needed and could be an asset to the people of Orange." 32. "An antique farm equipment and cooking implements exhibit would be nice. A botanical garden /arboretum for youth, elderly, handicapped to work in and enjoy." l 33. "I hope that this dream will come true." 34. "This is an excellent idea. This sort of facility would be a resource for the entire community for education, ',local marketing of livestock and produce (which should be good for farmers and consumers) a would eve permit attractions of and w d n special interest to be held (garden- shows, etc.) which might attract visitors from surrounding cities, from Greensboro to Raleigh! Agricultural, Business, Government and Consumer interests - should all support this- effort." 35. - "I feel that it is important -for the economy of Orange. It would also be very convenient to me as a breeder. I feel that with proper " planning, it could be useful for many purposes and functions as well C as a livestock-sales arena." t 36., "I think the main concern of most farmers in this area is to keep E a livestock market in this area. For us, at least, going to Siler City will be very time•consuming when there are many other things to be done. The multi - purpose aspect is attractive but with the new show barn at Orange Grove, do we need a new show facility in Hillsborough? It sounds great but very expensive. 37. "Yes I would like to see a sound working live stock market which would' serve the people especially around this area, and especially people who are not able to go to far distance markets. I also like to see a wing where people could bring their farm products (a booth) and sell it. Thank you all in advance.: 38. "If we- are going to maintain the rural atmosphere of Orange County; we must not let the livestock facility.disappear. It is just as important as many of the historical buildings in our county." 39. "Might buy bonds or stock. Believe corporation board should include at least one "at- large" representative to represent so- called consumers." 40. "As an organization with strong beliefs in the future of agriculture, the Orange F.F.A. Alumni would like to show our support in favor of having an agriculture market in Hillsborough. We feel it would be beneficial to orange County as well as neighboring counties." 41. "Most of the above committee members are strangers to me - -(a beef farmer). We need an agriculture facility that works with and for our producers - to further these products - not to take advantage of and 3 use and manipulate their needs during crisis - good idea if the farme: is to be saved - -and the farms. We have beef producers coming in froi other states to buy feeder calves. This helps the' far7ners get better price -- however, price- setting must be guarded against. I: properly administered, this facility could provide a positive image to the agricultural industry, and bring money into the County. Now, i we take our products elsewhere, it will not increase the County's cas: flow." 42. "Please include wood crafts in the new market. Farmers ani craftsmen need a good market for their products. Some farmers ar good craftsmen." 43. "I think a multi - purpose market would benefit consumers an farmers in Orange County. Location should be thought out well." 44. "This is a fine idea and I support it completely." 45 "We think it is a good idea to have a multi- purpose agricultura facility in Orange County to help the farmers market their products t the citizens of the surrounding areas and cattle farmers would no have to transport their livestock so far." 46. "Do not see a need for museum or gallery at the present time also-new management very important - as I think the present managemen is part of the current problem - money has not been handled properly funds abused." 47. "Funding for building? Funding for operating ?" 48. "A facility as proposed above would certainly be an asset to nc only farmers, but the entire area." 49. "A multi - purpose facility would be. nice for a lot of differer. things! I think -that it is important for us to maintain.a livestoc market in Orange County. If not we will be faced with shipping oL cattle out of the county thus costing us more in shipping and. tl loss* of tax revenue to the county may be another good reason f maintaining a market of our own." 50. "I am a cattleman and I'° think we need livestock marketir facilities." 51. "Would like to see more buyers - and a better management." 52. "This is the- first intelligent decision I have known Oranc County to consider in recent time. This would be an asset to all c Orange County - not just farmers." 53. "Someone said there was a possibility of loosing farmer's mark( at Carrboro - Homestead Community Center Building has been turned ba( to the County. I can't understand why? Nothing is being done excel to board up the windows and put it on hold. This property can be ( great importance to this end of the County - and this should be take i off (Hold) and put into (Action) (Meeting Places) (Farmer's Mkt etc." 54. "While I am not a livestock producer, I do have a small garden. would never produce anything for the market. The idea as stated abo- seems a wonderful idea. I would support it. 55. "Let me know if I can help in any way." 56. " "Quality study and planning are all important. But time is the essence." It would seem to me just as important. As a fries said to me this A.M., "We in this area border on "planning things death" Believe there is merit to his comment. 57. "A multi - purpose market and agricultural facility-would be mutual benefit to both the farmers of Orange and surrounding counti and the townspeople!" 58. "Hopefully, although from Chatham County, our family cou benefit from such a facility. We presently merchandise 90% of o produce and crafts at the Carrboro Farmer's Market." 31 4 59. Person County Extension Agent "Our producers are in agreemel that the more markets the better as well as providing our gardeners with a good market to sell produce. Many in Person Co. would like multi - purpose facility in Orange County." 60. "We would like (to) see such a market and ag. facility in orange County. Farmers would profit by it, we are sure. 6.1. "I would like to see this if it was operated like it should be.11 62. "I think this would be great for Hillsborough andlnorth ularly County as well as agricultural interests in the area. be nice if like the prospects of grouping the markets. some of th could be located near I -85, I -40 in order to pick up traffic. It could mean much for the economy of the area." go up and 63. "I an in favor of a market if it doesn't make my if buyers can fie secured." 64. "A new up -to -date livestock market would improve the marketii aspects of the beef cattly industry dramatically." 65. "A Farmers Market sounds good." 66. "Good idea, please try." would be available to resident o; 67. + +I hope the facility surrounding counties as the market at lmarketuto hhelpeits„ produce 68. "Orange County needs a livestock good idea but a museum is nI stay in business. An arena is a g needed." al o ortuni 69. "Markets for cattle would here be arerplentyf ofer buyers gwho will atte� for all sellers, and if stock sales." 70. "I think the livestshouldabeetbuilt to e accommodate bnotf01 consideration. The arena cattle and dairy farmers, but horse people for sales and shows t . area is really growing."I NEGATIVE COMMENTS County sit ldfastlandsdoh not 1. "I do not think Orange need ml will not support -it. We are growing people coming into this area. I will add I am one of the sile majority on this* subject who raise livestock. 2. "I don't want any County tax money included inublicVentur 1:1 this. I will have more comments about the P held requesting public funds." 3. "I presently attend the.Carrboro Market. It's the best sm� farmer's market I have seen. With the expanded Raleigh market, , proposed regional market in Greensboro see and re headvantagedtoganot: presently established in + market in Orange County." 4. "The idea of putting a farmer's market together with a'livest ll barn is not a good idea. Farmer's markets will work well evidenced by the one in Carrormoveruforhmosteepeopler .e where Alivest are. Convenience is the major barn is fine, but do not combine it with a farmer's market. livestock barn will not be acceptable cloSebeo where bpeeople live, to disc that is where a farmer s market this further." CONDITIONAL 1. . "Lets not over do this facility and over burdeputthelvlives beginning. Lets plan this in two (2) phases Lets p • � 5 market and arena, farmer's market, meeting room and cafeteria in phase one and put the museum and gallery in phase two. I would like to see phase one put in operation and see how well it does. If it goes well, then consider building phase two if it appears to be feasible." 2. "I think it would depend on where it is to be located. Hillsborough is not a good location for a retail farmer's market - not enough customers available. Residents of Durham will go to Chapel Hill or Carrboro to shop because there are many other places to shop. Residents of Chapel Hill do not mind paying for farm fresh produce but in many other areas, they want to haggle over price. Farmers work hard to get that produce raised, harvested and to market in top shape. We stopped selling on the Durham market because too'many people though they could buy at bargain basement prices." 3. "What a stupid question to ask. All will be for (the Market) but would they be if they knew the cost?" y N y y ATTACHMENT C 4, O R A N G E C O U N T.Y INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis FROM: Albert Kittrell SUBJECT: Leasing Meeting Facilities. DATE: May 13., 1987 As reported earlier, four county 'departments leased facilities to conduct county sponsored programs, workshops, and training sessions. The lack of appropriate space in county facilities, primarily in Hillsborough, was the reason for leasing meeting facilities. The following is the extent to which space was rented during the 1986 -87 fiscal year. Department Number of Number of Clients Participatinq Cost Events Agriculture 70 3,860 $ 2 675 Extension Personnel 4. 740 700 Aging 1 300 350 Recreation . l 80 350 Total 76 4198.0 $4,075 The totals above. do not reflect the utilization of meeting space by non - departmental agencies funded by the county, county advisory boards, and department functions conducted in space provided free. All departments, agencies and advisory boards contacted expressed an interest in additional and appropriate meeting facilities in the northern part of the county. The recently discussed Agriculture Center would address the needs of. county departments and county affiliated ag e H I I H(,hI`ItN I 1) r'- Orange (fountU FSerreation anb Varks Eeparttnent N C 300 West Tryon Street HILLSBOROUGH. N.C. 27278 Mary Anne Black. Director MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Halkiotis, County Commissioner FROM: Mary Anne Black DATE: March 30, 1987 Ue.E nit. RE: Agricultural /Rural Education Center; possible program ideas for My staff and I have really "brainstormed" concerning possible program ideas to aid you in your study of the feasibility of a joint public /private venture for the creation of an Agricultural /Rural Education Center in Orange County. The following is a list of our ideas, many of which would depend upon the site constraints: a. Orange County Fair site ! b. new Hog Day site = c. BMX (bicycle race) track 4 d. indoor or outdoor target range (Police and Sheriff use, as well) e. archery range (stationary or cross - country), f. skeet range g. ropes course h. turkey shoot site i. horseshoe pit complex (tournament calibre) j. tree farm (especially interesting to this department as we begin to do more park landscaping)' k. garden plot rentals 1. gardening.classes m. landscape and architecture classes n. woodworking classes o. hunting and fishing seminars p. fishing rodeo q. small engine repair shop r. Scout camping area s. home improvement classes t. GED classes u. square dance hall v. Youth Hostel site w. cooking classes x. frisbee (disc) golf course y. par -3 golf course with driving range z. softball batting cages with pitching machines aa. equestrian events Also envisioned is an Environmental Education Center with classrooms for slide presentations, taxidermy classes, disply cases, and "hands -on" programs. This is a start at least, and we will continue to "dream!" MAB /pbl Hillsborough, 732 -9361 a Durham, 688 -7333 • Chapel Hill, 968 -4501 • Mebane, 227 -2032 Area Code 919 V 6 USES FOR LIVESTOCK MARKET /MULTIUSE FACILITY 1. Area Horticultural Workshops 2: Spring Garden & Lawn Shows (perhaps in conjunction with a housing sl I 3. Crop Production Meetings 4. If land permits- -turf, fruit & landscape demonstration areas 4 5. Farmers Market 6. 4 -H Achievement Night 7. 4 -H Horse Shows 8. Farm Fair 9, Urban Lamb Projects 10. County Heritage Skills Workshop 11. Crafts Fair 12. Furniture Refinishing Workshops 13. EFNEP Day Camps (youth) 14. EFNEP RetrEats (adults) 15. Trunk Refinishing Workshop f G 16. Food'Fairs 17. Food Shows 18. Fun Fairs (Human Development emphasis) 19. Health & Nutrition Fairs 20. 4 -H Horse Shows , 21. Horse Management torkshops for adults 22. Horse Management Workshops for Youth ` 23. 4 -H & FFA Livestock Show & Sale 24. Barn or.shed for 4 -H Lamb projects for non -farm youth 25. Livestock Demonstrations 26. Orange- Durham Cattlemen's Association Meetings r - non -far 27, Farm Fair (or othEr Agricultural Awareness programs fo IISRS for Livestock Mnrket/ Multiuse Fnrility Pnge .2 29, Goat Shows 29, nog Shows 30, Poultry Shows 31. , Quilt Shows 32. Mule Shows 33. Rohhit Shows 34, Gilt and Roar Soles 35, Turf Mnnagement Shows /Seminnrs 36, Antique Car Shows 37, Site for Tractor Pulls 39, Rose Shows 39, F,F,A, Locnl Hyco.- Federation Competitive Events (Composted bedding would be ogged�jnd sold ns a topsoil- - a definite renewnhle resource The site could also serve as a marvelous Civil Defense facility. LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County ATTACHMENT E Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732 -2431 Chapel Hill 942 -6300 Residence Phone: 929 -5535 To: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis From: Sheriff Lindy Pendergras Be: Firearms Range Availability In Orange County Date: May 12, 1987 37 I take this opportunity to follow up on our conversation as to (a) availability of a firing range for the Orange County Sheriff's Department here in the county. (b) the availability for the,Orange.County Schools and (c) the availability for the Orange County Recreation Department. The answer.to AB & C is of course, there is no availability for any of these. LP:rf 4 D In order for.the Orange County Sheriff's Department to qualify and meet standards, our personnel must use the facilities of the Durham County Sheriff's Department. This, at times, creates problems with scheduling around the times when the range is not in use as well as the distance that we must travel and this often creates a hardship on the personnel in the.department in meeting training standards for qualification. As you are aware of, firearms training is a great liability,for all law enforce - went agencies. In order for us to comply with training requirements we should have access to a range wherein we could train on a regular basis, avoiding any civil liability should we be found deficient. A Firing Range must be 'located in an area that is safe and one that would not create complaints from the citizens of the county as has been the case with the Chapel Hill Police Departments Range. Letters of need from Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough Police Departments are attached. I hope that somehow a Range can be built to accomodate all who are concerned, and one that is large enough to support the needs as it is most essential due to the mandatory training standards. LP:rf 4 D ATTACHMENT F ,4 Cria..pe 1 Hi 1 1 P o l i c e Dapar- tm x� t- 825 Airport Road Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 (919) 968 -2760 April 30, 1987 Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Orange County Sheriffs Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Sheriff Pendergrass: I would like to take this opportunity to support the proposal for a firing range for Law Enforcement Officers in Orange County. It will fill a need that has existed in the County for some time, and enhance the quality of Law Enforcement services for the residents of the County. As you know, Officers of the Chapel Hill Police Department present- ly utilize the range owned by the Chapel Hill Police Association. This facility is serving us well, and in fact, we are now in the pro- cess of negotiating with the Association for improvements at the fa- cility. Some of the improvements are. necessitated because of new re- quirements proposed by the State for limited light qualification as well as combat firing qualifications. As you also know, this facility is limited to five lanes which will not be large enough too support the future needs of Law Enforcement Officers other than our own. Be- cause of the topography of the area, the cost of adding additional lanes is prohibitive, and therefore is not presently being considered as one of those improvements under discussion. I believe that the needs into the future, area for all of Law Enf even further to lessen same, and an adequate tial. Our facility is the entire County with .Association's range will be able to meet our but with firearms being such a high liability °orcement, I plan on increasing our own training this risk. I know that you would like to do the facility to carry out this training is essen- simply not large enough to support the needs of necessary training such as this. For all of these reasons, I wholeheartedly support this proposal. It will assist all of us in doing our job better and more safely, and is therefore a wise and prudent investment of public resources. Sincerely Yours, . /�' . major-Arnold Gold, Interim Chief of Police Chapel Hill Police Department I ( 1 ) May 8, 1987 Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Orange County Sheriff's Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Lindy: . 9 ATTACHMENT G F.O. Box 337 301 West Alain Strera Carrboro, Nnrth Caro ina 27510 (919) 968 -7700 (919; At the present the Carrboro Police Department is conducting firearms training and qualification 5 times a year. At each training session the officers shoot a total of 150 rounds. One hundred reloaded rounds are used to fire two-practice runs over the prescribed course of fire as listed in the Basic Law Enforcement Training Manual issued by N.C. Training & Standards Commission. The last fifty rounds are service ammunition manufactured by Remington Arms Corporation, Bridgeport, Conn. This is the type of ammunition the officers are required to carry on duty, and they must qualify using this ammunition. As you can see we have a extensive firearms program. Our departments twenty -two sworn officers enjoy this program and it is reflected in their scores. During the last session.our department average was 95.6% We at present are using a portion of a small farm in Orange County near Hillsborough. We were given permission to use this area for our training by the owner 7 years ago and our contract consists of a strong handshake. Our immediate concern is that the area we are using is immediately adjacent to an exit ramp from the new I -40. The value of that land of course has now skyrocketed. I feel it's realistic to assume, sometime in the near future that land may be sold. This causes our department some serious concerns. From a liability point of view it is essential that a good firearms program be maintained. It would be a great help if the county somehow acquired land and established a range for the law enforcement departments in the county to use. This range could also be used as a training facility for any school program for small bore (rifle) . Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Page 2 real, especially & Standards ecially since Training The need is very mandator inservice firearmtments. co nsidering Commission no is municipal polio and sheriff's dep training e County I hope you will present my concerns to the orange Commissioners. Best Personal Regards, a)'_ A, Sid Herje, Chief of Police Carrboro, NC ASH /cl i. i V i i i i ATTACHMENT H Chief 3iitl.sbnroug4 VDiire Repartinen# L. C. S Lieutenaant nt 127 NORTH CHURTON STREET Patrolmen J. Holloway N. z� HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 J. G. Jacobs Sergeant geant 732 -9381 P. E. While L. F. Linen 732 -9382 W. T. kink Investigator J. H. Irwin B. R. Frederick Secretary G.B. Snowden M. E. Lockfaw Im May 12, 1987 Shetr isj Lindy PendengAau 144 East Matcgah.et Lane H.c.Mbotough, NC 27278 Dea>< She&i 44, T a uppoAt a pi.6tot Hang e that can be ud ed by a U .taw enjotcement o44.iceu .in Otcange Couvity. At th,iz time, we have to ube the pcdto.F? range o6 other - depatrtment6 . The H.i Mbotcough Pot ice Depaktment witt put South evetcy eJJon t to obtain a p i 6tot Aang e in Otcang e County. S,incenety, a� Larxy C. Biggb Chie6 LCB /met ,4-2 ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK /HORTICULTURE MARKET /RURAL EDUCATION CENTER Proposed Board of Directors -- Structure The Board of Directors will have 14 members: 1. Orange County Livestock Producer* 2. Orange County Livestock Producer* 3. Orange County Livestock Producer* 4. Orange County Horticulture Producer ** 5. Orange County Horticulture Producer ** 6. At large -- agriculture * ** 7. At large -- agriculture * ** 8. At large -- open * * ** 9. At large -- open * * ** 10. Orange County Ag. Extension Chairman 11. 'Orange County Ag. Extension Livestock Agent 12. Member, Orange County Board of Commissioners (or their designee) 13.. Director, Orange County Recreation Department 14.' Orange High School Ag. faculty member * * * ** necessarily * Must be an active (though not /full -time) Orange County livestock producer. To be elected by a vote of Orange County livestock producers; vote to be monitored like''an ASCS or referendum vote. ** Must be an active (though not necessarily full -time) Orange County horticulture producer. To be elected by a vote of Orange County horticulture producers; vote to be monitored like an ASCS or referendum vote. * *.* Must be an active agricultural producer in Orange County. The following may vote for this office: a. agricultural producers in Orange County (certified by either ASCS or Ag. Ext. Service); b. stock/bond holders of the Orange County Livestock /Horticulture Market /Rural Education Center; or c. sell or buy livestock (at least 1 animal unit) at Orange County Market at least 5 times during calendar year, or sell over $100 produce 8 or more times during calendar year. * * ** An open /public seat; may be held by ag. related businessman, etc., and does not have to be an Orange County resident. Election proceedure the same as for * ** above. * * * ** Appointed by the Orange High School Principal. 1. The Executive Committee will have 5 members elected from among the Board of Directors by the Board of Directors. It will incluc the Board's Chair, Vice - chair, Secretary, Treasurer, and one at large member. Officers of the Board and the Executive Committee will be *elected every year. 2. The Board of Directors will serve without compensation. 3. The Board of Directors will meet at least Quarterly, and more often, if necessary. 4. Eight elected members of the Board will serve 2 year terms, with 4* being elected in alternate years. One elected member will ser, a 3 year term. -more- Proposed Board of Directors Structure -- Continued r S. Appointed members of the Board of Directors will be reappointed every 2 years. 6. A change in the structure of the Board of Directors must be approved by a 3 /5's majority of those eligible to vote who cast ballots, and is subject to ratification by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Proposed Board of Directors -- Duties and Responsibilities The purpose of the Board of Directors is to provide direction to the Orange County Livestock /Horticulture Market /Rural Education Center," keeping always in mind that the Orange County Livestock / Horticultur Market /Rural Education Center is a publicly owned, privately operated enterprise held as a public trust. 1. A primary duty of the Board of Directors is to hire a profession: manager, and to provide this manager with sufficient support and incentives that will enable him to get the operation off the ground and keep it growing. 2. The manager, once hired, will be responsible for hiring the staff necessary to operate the facility. 3. While the day to day operations of the Orange County Livestock/ Horticulture Market /Rural Education Center will be'left to the manager, the Board of Directors will set general guidelines for the operation of the facility. 4. The Board of Directors will set the appropriate."fees, rents an commissions to be'charged. S. The Board of Directors will assure that all applicable .federal Aim state and local regulations concerning the Center'•s.various enterprises' are 'strictly adhered to. 6. The Board of Directors will approve 'an annual budget for the Center's operation which will be prepared by the Center'-s. mana •7. The Board of Directors will approve contractsi• as necessary, with concessionaires,-businesses, groups and individuals to provide necessary services for the 'Center. 8. The Board of Directors will approve capital expenditures as necessary. 9. The Board of Directors will issuXe or redeem stock/bonds as necessary and appropriate.. 10.. The 'Board of Directors will oversee 'the 'Center's. custodial account. 11. Thd Board of Directors will serve 'as liason, wherever necessar between the Center. and its. various constituent groups,, - more -: CI i i I 1 1 ATTACHMENT J ORANGE COUN_ TY ECON()-_%nc DFVELOP_NIENT CO'-NIYlISSION P.O. BOX 71.2. • 117 N. CHURTOY ST. HILLSBOROUGH. N.C. 27278 (919) 7:32-8181 EXT. •?76) (919) 968 -4;501 30 December 1986 MEMO TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Chair Moses Carey, Jr., Vice –Chair Don Willhoit Dr. John Hartwell Dr. Steven Halkiotis FROM: Sylvia Price, Director Orange County Economic Development Commissi6 lg.,101 SUBJECT: Briefing Note — Hillsborough Livestock Market Attached please find a briefing note -regarding the Hillsborough Livestock Market which Commissioner Marshall asked me to prepare for distribution to the Board. If you have questions, or if there is further infor- mation'you require, please contact me and I will be glad to assist. SP:smb Encl. cc: Ken Thompson Bill Laws John McKee 'I Briefing Note — Hillsborough Livestock Market Background. The Livestock market in Hillsborough was estab- lished in 1941 on 15 acres sold by Orange County to the Durham Farmers Mutual Exchange for a total price of $10. An additional, 95.5 acres were similarly sold for $2.,500 in 1942. Though it was the ;.,rent thwt tha land should be used for a livestock market for servicing Orange County farmers, and it has in fact done so for 40+ years, the deeds do not state that the land must be so used in perpetuity, nor is there any provision for the land to revert beck to Orange County should it cease to be used fora livestock market. Operations, Currently the market holds sales on Mondays, and the average volume of 250 animal units per week is composed of culls from dairy herds, baby bull calves, cull beef cows, feeder battle, market weight hogs, cull sows, boars, feeder pigs. Also, graded feeder cattle and yearling sales are held four times per year. Employment at the market is 5 full —time people and 7 -10 additional persons on market days. The full —time employees spend most of their time on swine contacts, and will be retained when the market closes. Profit /cost figures are not available. Goldkist, the market operator, states that the market operation covers costs, but does not make a profit. The building and equipment are fully depreciated, and the operating budget does not include sums for rent, replacement or maintenance. 2 Property Transactions, Before FCX announced its bankruptcy in September 1985, the 69 acres surrounding the market building were placed on the market. Following bankruptcy, Goldkist,'a Georgia cooperative bought the livestock market and 12 acres of grounds upon which it and the pig barn stand. The surrounding 57 acres remained on the market, offered either as lots or as an entire tract. The Livestock market site owned by Goldkist was = on the market. In the summer of 1986, it was announced that an offer for the entire tract had been received and accepted for the 57 acres controlled by the FCX bankruptcy court. In addition, Goldkist agreed to sell the 12 —acre livestock market site to the same purchasers, who are DCA General of Raleigh: The purchase contract for the Goldkist property leaves the ownership of buildings and equipment with Goldkist, but these must be removed within six months. # Current Status. As of December 16, 1986, the sale transaction on the FCX property has closed, and the Goldkist deal closes on 31 December. Thus, in six months, the livestock market will cease to operate in its present location. ALL of the land (except 13 acres on the south side of I -851 is in the extra— territorial jurisdiction of Hillsborough, and is zoned industrial. The purchasers have stated that they plan to develop the acreage as a business park for Light industrial, service businesses end some commerciaL businesses. Qai look for Re establishment of the Market in an Alternative Location. The likely closure of the Livestock market has been 47 3 apparent since the bankruptcy of FCX more then one year ago. At that time-the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners wrote to Jim Graham expressing concern, members of the BOCC met with represent- atives of the Cattlemen's Association, and the Orange County Economic Development Commission also expressed concern and offered assistance No clear consensus developed at that time among the forming community except that they indicated a preference for examining the possibili— ties themselves. That still appears to be their position. It is unclear how the market and the need for such a market is perceived by the farming community, beyond its convenience as a place to sell small numbers of animals. i Alternatives to the Hillsborough market include cattle markets in SiLer City, Oxford and Danville. Recently Sitar City added a second sale each week - on Monday — so it is now ins' direct competition with Hillsborough on Mondays. Swine are increasingly being sold under contract (like poultry), so the need for a swine market may be disappearing. Quality horses are sold by private contract, while horse culls are sold mainly at SiLer City. A committee of the Cattleman's Association have written t( ant of their plans. Goldkist hav, Goldkist asking for a sta tem replied that they do not intend to operate a livestock market afte the existing market clo ses in 5 months. They have, however, offers the building and equipment to anyone who intends to re— establish Livestock market there. (A copy of Goldkist's reply is attached.) Proposed Board of Directors -- -Organizational Chart Eorticulture Producers Craftspersons Livestock Producers Ag. Extension General Public County Government County Commissioners Board of Directors - -14 members Board of Directors Executive Committee -•'5 members Manager Staff N r Dear Livestock /Horticulture Producer: A committee of Orange County County Commissioners and Orange plan to provide a long -,term facility in Orange County. ATTACHMENT K livestock /horticulture producers, Orange County government officials•,are studying a marketing and multi - purpose agricultural We are examining the feasibility of a joint public - private venture featuring a publicly built, multi - purpose agricultural facility which would include, in addition to a modern livestock market and arena, a farmer's market, a large meeting.room and cafeteria, and an Orange County Agricultural Museum and Gallery. This facility and livestock market would be operated, under a lease agreement, by a private, non - profit corporation. The goal is to promote maximum use of the facility. The private, non - profit corporation would hire a professional manager who would be responsible for the day -to -day operation of the livestock market and facility, securing and increasing business, conducting special and private sales, shows, and so on. The corporation's Board of Directors would include elected Orange County livestock /horticulture producers, a representative of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Orange County Livestock Extension Agent, the Orange County Extension Chairman, and a representative of the Orange County Agribusiness Council. Funding for the operation of the livestock market would be raised through the sale of bonds or stock. In order to help us with our feasibility study, would you please fill out the attached survey and return as soon as possible to the Orange County Extension office, 306 -E Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278. You do not need to sign the form if you do not wish, and we have provided room for any comments you might like to make. Sincerely, Orange County Livestock /Horticulture Market /Rural Education Center Feasibility Study Committee W. E. Mainous, Karen McAdams, Barney Pittman, Dean Deter, Sylvia Price, Albert Kittrell,.S.H. Halkiotis, Chris. Best, Barry Jacobs and Mary Anne Black I would like to see a multi- purpose livestock /horticulture market and agricultural facility built in Orange County. yes no Name and Address (optional) Comments: I 1N3WHOVii 1 ra �2� IL z ski ���q ,Q xo�� O r 0 C G 71� � w t� � 0 C O 3� �n ra f R z o C t � N L o i z 2 o r (Y �np I I. r I t 1 i 2r. f' bTYl-A2f)7J [\Ao-W nano aNv 1 CYO �rinw -� 1 Q CT 7 4 t � N L o i z 2 o r (Y �np I I. r I t 1 i 2r. f' bTYl-A2f)7J [\Ao-W nano aNv 1 CYO �rinw -� 1 Q �r f, ��,tF 4,, -7 RURAL EDUCATION CENTER Responses to questions raised by Mars Hills and Fairview Group pertaining to locating the Rural Education Center on county property at the intersection of Hwy. #86 and Hwy. #57. 1. The committees or advisory groups involved in the process of planning the concept of a Rural Education Center have changed several times over the years. Some of the early committee members are included in the attached lists. Current committee members have been made up of several local cattle producers, including the following: Terry Chronaki, Don Johnson, C.B. Pope, Mike Johnson, Calvin Davis, and Bill Ray. Also on this committee has` been: County Manager John Link; Fletcher Barber, County Extension Director; and Karen McAdams, Agricultural Extension Agent. 2. Attached are copies of notes from committee meetings, etc. 3. The county began considering putting the Rural Education Center on the property in approximately 1992 when it was brought up that this property was county owned. The rationale was that putting the Center on county owned land would save greatly in the amount of capital it would take to start up the center. This site is apparently the only county owned property in the Hillsborough- Northern Orange area that had enough acreage that is county owned. There were some initial talks with the Town of Hillsborough about working out an arrangement between the town and the county for a land swap of some adjacent land to provide a site in that area. The proposal of putting the Rural Education Center on this site was brought up again in the fall of 1994 by the County Manager because the Center needed to be pushed forward and a site found. The proposal to locate the site on county owned property was never brought up to be voted on by the County Commissioners. The idea was in the planning process and would eventually have been brought up at a County Commissioners meeting to be voted on. 4. The county purchased this piece of property on December 3, 1990 from Patricia Jane Garrett. 5. When the idea was proposed to locate the Rural Education Center in this area, Fletcher Barber did request to speak at a meeting of the Mars Hill community group in December to inform them of the possibility of putting this facility at the county owned site. It was felt that this was not an appropriate time because this was a social function. It was suggested that a meeting with the community be scheduled for early 1995. Several phone calls were made in February to Ms. Parker to schedule a meeting, but we both failed to reach each other. r r L J 4 6. The committee felt that traffic considerations would be sufficiently addressed by the construction of the new entrance into the new county garage. . 7. The criteria that was used in selecting this area was a large enough acreage to accommodate the Rural Education Center and possible future construction of county Agricultural Offices. It is thought that the site should be in the Hillsborough, and the County Manager has indicated that Orange County likes to keep county owned buildings relatively close into town so that travel for maintenance will be minimized. A site close to town would also be desireable so that the multi - purpose Rural Education Center could be used by a large number of citizens for a variety of educational activities. A site far out in northern Orange County would not lend itself as well to use for trade shows, farmer's markets, youth educational activities, 4 -H activities and other uses for either people in Hillsborough or in the southern half of the county. Several sites have been considered over the years, including land owned by Duke University in Hillsborough, as well as privately owned land. Negotiations about these properties have never worked out or the cost of the land, particularly that close to Hillsborough, was cost prohibitive. The second half of the question was about the original livestock market. The old livestock market property was sold by GoldKist in 1987 to a development company. The possibility of purchasing that property was never considered because it was so expensive and such a prime commercial property for development. The property has not been developed as of yet. In addition, the county is not proposing maintaining a weekly livestock market as a part of the Rural Education Center. The livestock aspect of the center included a cattle weighing and sorting facility that could be used by farmers to sell cattle from farm to farm and also to put together some truckload lots of cattle to be able to sell .them for higher prices. In addition, the facility would also be used for some local 4 -H and FFA livestock and dairy shows. 8. The criteria for selecting the site has already been mentioned. The concept of the Rural Education Center is one that is patterned after a site in Kinston, NC. Their site is in a town type setting and includes a multi - purpose type arena located beside the agricultural offices for the county. In addition, on the site there are demonstration gardens and a demonstration greenhouse. The committee felt that this type of overall Rural Education Center concept, with a possibility of adding a farmer's market to it would be a good resource for Hillsborough and would be something beneficial and not detrimental to any community where it was located. The livestock uses for this facility have been continually emphasized as the main function of the center, but in all likelihood will not be utilized on an everyday, regular sort of basis but rather a sporadic basis. We do 'not feel that the cattle component of the facility will be large enough or intrusive enough to cause problems with flies, odors, noise, etc. 2 9. It has already been mentioned that the preferred location for the Rural Education Center would be relatively close to Hillsborough where it would get more use for the educational components of the facility. 10. In the week of February 20, 1995, it was learned by committee members that the Town of Hillsborough had zoning regulations that would currently interfere with putting the livestock component of the facility in the proposed county owned location. It was also learned that the citizens of the surrounding community had reservations about locating this facility in their area. As a result, the committee met on February 23, 1995 and decided to give up looking at the county property for this project and go back to trying to purchase some land at a different location. The committee and the county manager did not want to get into a drawn -out disagreement with the town or the community over this issue. It was decided to pursue other possibilities even though this will delay the project which has been much delayed already. There are no current plans for putting any part of the Rural Education Center concept on this property. 3!16/95 -7 7 r C 3 3 iJ Do Informational Material Agricultural Preservation A 2003 56 U it farmland preservation report Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space Since 1990 . Deborah Bowers Editor 9THANNUAL SURVEY Montgomery returns to survey`s top slot After a year of having only the second highest number of preserved acres in FPWs national ranking of locally operated programs, Montgom- ery County grabbed back its top - ranking title from Lancaster County, Pa., logging a gain of 4,544 acres, 2,707 acres more than Lancaster which had the strongest gain last year. Montgomery's total, which includes acres protected through the transfer of development rights (TDR), stands at 59,415 acres and Lancaster's total is 56,708. These figures include acres under contract. It is partly through TDR that Montgomery's FARMAND RANCH LANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM acreage increased. After a slump in activity that lasted several years, TDR sales are seeing a dramatic increase because the county's "last major development corridor came on line," Nation s top 12 local programs table, p. 4 -5 opening up a receiving area in Clarksburg, according to program manager John Zawitoski. TDR sales increased from 309 in FY'02 to 1,457 in FY `03. The cost of TDRs has fluctu- ated with the market, ranging around $10,000 in Continued on page 2 States return $3 million for reallocation WASHINGTON, D.C. — Three states will return all their FRPP FY 04 award funds because they have no applicants, and five other states are likely to return funds for other eligibility shortfalls, according to Denise Coleman, program adminis- trator for the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program. The returned money, an estimated $3.5 million, will be divied out to qualifying states and localities by August, Coleman said. Arizona, South Dakota and Tennessee had no pending offers and will return a combined $23 million. Five other states — Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska, will return awards Continued on page 6 Volume 13, Number 9 July -Aug. 2003 Nation's top 12 local programs table ........................... 3 Newsbriefs .................................. ............................... 6 Jobpostings .................................. ............................... 7 Upcoming conferences .................. ............................... 8 Farmland Preservation Report is published by Bowers Publishing, Inc. 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $205 includes index and hotline services. Editorial and circulation offices: 900 La Grange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 • (410) 692 -2708 • bowerspub @hotmail.com • ISSN: 1050 -6373. @ 2003 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of this material without permission is prohibited. i5 Page 2 farmland preservation report Changes at top and bottom of ranking Continued from page I the mid- to late 1990s, and then decreasing fo about $7500 per right by 2002. With the new receiving area, prices have doubled, to about. $15,000, Zawitoski said. Development rights are being purchased from the county's Agricultural Reserve, a 93,000 -acre swath of land in the northern part of the county. In the ag preserve, designated in 1981, develop- ment can either occur at one unit per 25 acres (1:25) or be transferred out at one unit per five acres (1:5). Montgomery County also preserved five farms this past year through the state program, more than its usual one or two farms, adding 523 acres to the total. Historically, high land values have made it difficult for Montgomery farmers to consider MALPF offers. The county spent $7.3 million in state and local funds in FY `03, largely due to Rural Legacy Program grants that had to be spent by contract deadlines. Without Rural Legacy funds, the county averages about $1 to $2 million in preservation spending annually. Lancaster County's busiest year was followed with a slowdown and the departure of veteran administrator June Mengel. The past year saw a 869 -acre gain, compared to nearly 10,000 acres gained the year before. Rich Doenges, new executive director of the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board, will have an opportunity to crank up the acres with $7.5 million available.. Newcomer nudges Howard off list While two counties traded places at the top of the ranking, a notable change occurred at the bottom of the fist as well - Howard County, a lister since 1993, was nudged out of the ranking by its northwest neighbor, Frederick County. Howard held 6th place from 1993 to 1996, July - Aug. 2003 dropped to 8th place in 1997, and to 12th place in 2001, as other counties with more agricultural land and protective zoning found more willing landowners. If lack of agricultural protection zoning and diminishing agricultural land wasn't enough to slow down the county's preservation effort, county officials took a vacation from preserva- tion altogether between March 1996 and May 2000. The program closed shop after using up $55 million in bond money authorized in 1988. After the four -year break, the program was brought back in 2000 with a $15 million bond, but low per -acre offers kept farmers away, keeping the county's pace of preservation slow and usually nonexistent. The county board just last month proposed to raise its per -acre cap from $7500 to $15,000 and to decrease the eligible parcel size from 50 to 25 acres, actions taken years ago by counties with similar demographics in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Frederick County's program has been aggres- sive by comparison, adopting frontline techniques including installment purchase, pioneered by Howard in 1988, and a critical farms program that uses county funds to quickly help threatened farms until state money can be secured. Beginning its installment program just this past May, Frederick has already logged 1,622 acres under installment purchase agreements according to veteran administrator Tim Blaser. Chester County retains third place Third -place Chester County logged 1,768 acres in FY 03 and has $15.4 million for the upcoming year. Chester operates the state pro- gram as well as a local targeted program. Chester commissioners created the Challenge Grant Program for townships in the county's north end, and those townships are beginning to fund their share. The program will not exclude other types of land and allows parcels as small as 25 acres, a criteria likely to be approved by the Continued on page 3 July - Aug. 2003 farmland preservation report Page 3 Continued from page 2 state legislature as optional for counties. The Challenge Grant Program also allows horse boarding and training facilities to qualify: This expansion of the definition of agriculture was necessary, Baer said, to respond to the nature of agriculture in the region targeted. Allowing boarding and training to qualify for farmland preservation easements is a change also being considered by the legislatures of both Pennsylvania and Delaware. Program director Kevin Baer, of the county planning commission, said the program has even attracted the attention of Amish farmers, whose traditions disallow accepting government money. One Amish farmer will be doing a like -kind exchange, which will avoid the actual receipt of funds, but allow the farmer to acquire another tract of land. York keeps 11th place Nearby York County remains in 11th place, now protecting 139 farms and 28,823 acres. The county has held 9th and 8th place in the past but competes steadily to remain in the ranking. Adding to the county program is the activity of the Farm and Natural Lands Trust of York County, which now holds easements on 4,870 acres. The FNLT is looking to arrange a series of bargain sales in Lower Windsor Township, which recently created a dedicated funding source, the first York township to do so. Seven applicants are aiming to sell easements at a maximum of 75% of fair market value on properties ranging from about 20 to 50 acres. . "Most are adjacent to an existing easement," said Jackie Kramer, FNLT executive director. "These are not looking for a lot of money. It's about saving the land." One bargain sale has been completed. Carroll County, which has ranked in the top five counties since FPR's first survey in 1993, continues to plow ahead to accumulate acres despite a Maryland funding shortfall. Carroll, for all intents and purposes, is paying for the state program to operate in Carroll, by funding state program easement purchases, but having the state co -hold the easements, according to administra- tor Bill Powel. The MALPF program will pay for incidental costs, according to MALPF adminis- trator Jim Conrad. "It will be the same as their Rural Legacy MOU," Conrad said. Carroll County has developed a tradition of steady and significant acreage accumulation backed by strong leadership and commitment of adequate funds. Since July 2000, the program has logged 4,674 MALPF acres. Baltimore County is preparing for an event in September to mark its progress in protected acres _ the 40,000 -acre mark is coming up soon as Wally Lippincott and assistant Rob Hirsch work diligently with Rural Legacy county match funds as well as MALPF offers. Baltimore County has five Rural Legacy areas, more than any other county, and the county council has recognized the multi- organi- zation popular effort by committing significant matches from general funds and sending a $4.5 million bond to successful referendum last fall. The Rural Legacy Program is administered by the state Department of Natural Resources. It awards grants to localities and land trusts for purchasing conservation easements on farm and natural lands. Three of Baltimore County's designated Rural Legacy Areas (RLAs) focus on agricultural lands, and together cover about 43,000 acres. The county has completed Rural Legacy easements on more than 6,000 acres, and many more acres in each of the RLAs are pro- tected by other programs. But the county's strength in preservation is in the number of easements donated by landowners investing in countryside estates and working farms within 20 minutes of downtown Baltimore - nearly one -third of all preserved land in the county, 12,400 acres and counting, are under easement to the Maryland Environmental Trust. Continued on page 6 Page 4 farmland preservation report July -Aug. 2003 Nation's Top 12 Local Farmland Preservation Programs Montgomery (MD) Current Market Total Ag Ag Other Funding Value of Preserved Program Program Program Available Ag Products Rank County Acres Acres' Gain Ag Acres2 (millions)3 (millions) 1 Montgomery (MD) 59,415 53,362 4,544 6,053 5 28.5 2 Lancaster (PA) 56,708 46,294 869 10,414 7.5 766.7 3 Chester (PA) 46,416 18,309 1,768 28,107 15.4 342.8 4 Sonoma (CA) 41,866 38,051 178 3,815 37 463.6 5 Carroll (MD) 41,445 37,194 688 4,251 5 71.2 6 Baltimore QM) 39,435 20,842 319 18,593 4.5 51.1 7 Berks (PA) 35,792 33,040 5,040 2,752 9 247.7 8 Harford (MD) 35,438 31,185 1,554 3,584 2 38.8 9 M a r i n (CA) 34,605 32,480 513 2,125 4 - 5 53.8 10 Burlington 34,471 17,694 2,319 16,777 n/a 87.5 11 York (PA) 33,693 28,823 4,159 4,870 2.2 128.6 12 Frederick (NW) 25,787 19,616 n/a 6,171 5.4 101.6 TOTALS: 485,071 376,890 21,951 107,512 97 2.4 billion Notes 1 Ag program acres may include acres preserved through state or county programs, and may include acres under contract but not yet settled. 2Other programs include the Maryland Rural Legacy Program, local land trusts that protect farmlands, TDR programs not operated by the county, and other local programs that permanently set aside agricultural land and allow agricultural use. In Montgomery County, lands protected through TDR make up the majority of ag program acres. 3Current funds available for one or more years. 4 All localities receive, or are eligible to receive, federal matching funds. sources: Interviews with county personnel and private organizations, July 2003. Other sources of preserved acres, by county (all easements protect agricultural use) Montgomery Lancaster Chester Sonoma Carroll Baltimore Berks Harford Marin Burlington York Frederick Rural Legacy, MET Lancaster Farmland Trust Brandywine Conservancy, Natural Lands Trust Sonoma County Land Trust Rural Legacy, MET, Carroll County Land Trust Rural Legacy, MEr, The Manor Conservancy Berks County Conservancy Rural Legacy, MET Marin Open Space District Pinelands Development Credit Bank Farm and Natural Lands Trust of York County Rural Legacy, MET, ISTEA 7 63 July -Aug. 2003 farmland preservation report Page 5 Agricultural Protection Zoning Source of Funde Transfer of development rights (TDR); 1:25 residual. 1:25, all townships; urban growth boundaries in use. Of 73 twps, 5 have 1:10; 7 offer TDR; two have 1:25 Three ag zones: 1:10 -1:60; 1:20 - 1:100; 1:60 -1:320 1:20, with allowances resulting in 1:15 Ag protection zone 1:50; other rural zone of 1:25 Twenty of 44 twps with 1:10 -1:50 sliding scales 1:10, with allowances resulting in 1:5 -1:7 1:60 Pinelands transfer of development credits (similar to TDR) 1:10 -1:25 in some townships; minimal TDR activity 3:25 plus one additional per 50 acres if clustered Local general fund; state program; RLP State program; local general fund Bonds; state program; municipal match Dedicated 1/4 percent sales tax State ag prog.; local gen. fund State program, RLP; local bond Local bond issue State program; local real estate tx; RLP State grants; private grants; fundraising Dedicated property tax State program; local general fund State program; local general fund About the FPR Annual Survey of Local Programs How localities qualify for the survey This survey looks at a locality's progress in farmland preservation in terms of 1) number of acres permanently preserved; 2) political leadership and administrative skill; and, 3) significant commitment of funds. While the ranking itself considers only number of acres preserved, to be included in the survey all localities must meet the other criteria. At least 200 localities in the United States are using, or have used, agricultural conserva- tion easements and many more qualify for assistance to do so under state and federal programs. How counties are ranked The ranking considers a locality's total farmland preservation effort, including the activities of other entities and programs, such as land trusts, open space districts that use easements, other state programs that hold easements on agricultural land, and easements assisted with a combination of funding sources. All acres used in the survey are farmland acres, which generally include woodland and riparian areas that are part of a property under agricultural use. Lands that are preserved primarily for environmental protection or habitat restoration are excluded. COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Reproduction of this table for use outside of a subscriber's agency is prohibited. It should not be reproduced or transferred to another location or agency. If you have a request or questions, call the publisher at 410 692 -2708 or email: bowerspub @hotmail.com. Page 6 farmland preservation report July - Aug. 2003 SURVEY, continued from page 3 (News briefs... - Economy slows, development doesn't Counties in the survey, while feeling the effect of budget cuts to Pennsylvania ... Sandy state program dollars have not noted an slowdown in development p g � Y p Robison was named director of the R activity. Montgomery County's John Zawitoski said the county's Bureau of Farmland Protection, transfer tax dollars showed an increase of $600,000 in FY 03 over effective July 14. Robison replaces FY 02. Asked by the state to provide a statement on the need for . Mary Bender, who was appointed to another position by Gov. Ed expending a Rural Legacy award already granted to the county, Rendell. Robison has been with the Zawitoski noted the pace of development "is not impacted by the Bureau for five years, and served as economy. If we don't do it now, the threat is. there, and it will be administrator of the York County Ag Preserve Board in its early years as more expensive later." well as chairman of the board in In Harford County, a local real estate transfer tax brought in 1989. She also served as interim extra revenues as well - enough to run two cycles of easement offers Y director following the departure of former director Ray Pickering. instead of one, according to administrator Bill Amoss. The county's Robison said she looks forward to own installment purchase program has logged close to 20,000 acres, the work of preservation. "I have twice as many as are protected under the state program in Harford. such a passion for this. You go home and feel very proud. Its a Berks County moved from 10th place to 8th in the ranking, with wonderful feeling.",. Robison re- an impressive 5,000 -plus acre gain for a total of 35,792 acres. The ported latest program figures as county also has impressive funding - $9 million available for the 2,195 farms and 257,986 acres preserved. The latest added acres upcoming year, among the deepest pockets in the ranking. are approved and moving toward Berks first entered the FPR ranking n Jul 2000•in •12th, lace g Y.. .. , . , p. ,, -•' J. settlement generally within 45 days. : .. . with 15,545 ag program acres. It logged 5,676. acres by July 2001, HB 671 Which would allow counties to reduce farm size and another 6,779 acres by July 2002. eligibility from 50 to 25 acres After a $30 million bond issue, the Berks program attracted 213 passed the House 96 -0, and is in the Senate Agriculture Committee. applicants in 2000. HB 668, to make the Growing Berks' expenditures are helped by a good number of municipali- Greener funding source permanent ties that have enacted agricultural protection zoning, some with for farmland preservation, is still on sliding scale generally providing a 1:20 density, and others with 40- the table in the House; Rep. Bunts is seeking to add the language as or 50 -acre minimum lot size, according to county planner Cheryl an amendment to another funding Auchenbach. Some townships are even doing joint comprehensive bill, HB 501; still on the table in the House are two farmland preserva- plans and joint zoning. lion bond bills, HB 667 and HB 814, calling for $150 million and $200 million respectively. REALLOCATED FUNDS, continued from page I In Maryland ... Rural Legacy because of eligibility problems , including lack of matching funds and grant proposals have only entered agency review, according to lands submitted as projects found to be publicly owned. program director Pam Bush. She "Most had an indication they had solid proposals. We based our said turnover in administration and - awards on estimates made in November. By April some of the deals, on the Rural Legacy Board has delayed the awards process this or, expected matching funds didn't come through," Coleman said. year. Awards have usually been Coleman said the funds would be reallocated across the board. announced in early summer. Just '04, "Most states will get some money," she said. $5 million is budgeted for down from $21.3 million in '03. Coleman said the program recently published a manual, available The Maryland Environmental at the NRCS website, for using the FRPP. Final rules were published Trust this fall will celebrate 100,000 acres under easement in May. In New Jersey ... After a long Contact: Denise Coleman, 202 720 -9476. delay, the legislature passed its July - Aug. 2003 farmland preservation report Page 7 appropriations act facing its deadline of June 30 and the governor signed it, including $72.3 million in allocations to the farmland preservation program. "We hope not to wait so long next year," said `communications chief Ralph Siegel. The State Agriculture Development Committee is already working on its appropriations proposal for next fiscal year, he said. The money is appropriated from bond issues. Since its start in 1981, the New Jersey program has been funded through a series of $50 million bond acts, leading up to a 1998 referendum in which voters committed $1 billion to split between farmland and open space protection, with the goal of preserving one million acres. In Ohio ... The Ohio Office of Farmland Preservation just completed its second round of offers for FY03, preserving seven farms with $3.1 million. This year, the program will reach 10,000 acres preserved, according to director Howard Wise. Final allocations for -FRPP grants-from: the state's $2 million award had not been announced at press time. In North Carolina ... Orange County is negotiating three agricultural conservation ease- ments in its Lands Legacy Pro- gram, which uses easement and fee purchases to protect farm and natural resource lands. Bond and general county allocations as well as $800,000 in FPP funds has helped the urbanizing county protect 424 acres on three farms, including a dairy, a beef operation and a crop farm. The county has now protected a total of 495 acres of farmland. The program was created three years ago with multiple objectives and is adminis- tered by the county Environment and Resource Conservation Dept In Delaware ... The definition of agriculture under state law will be broadened as the legislature amends enabling law that affects agriculture's exemption from local zoning ordinances. The definition may include horse boarding and training, a major change that will expand eligibility criteria for farmland preservation. F sional resources ... 3 Lake County Forest Preserve District (IL), Land Preservation Specialist- Under guidance of the Director of Land Preservation, this position will evaluate, plan, research and implement real estate transactions for the District land acquisition program. Conduct on -site assessments and technical research of potential land and prepare reports. Negotiate and coordinate the acquisition of selected properties. Assist in managing the easement and lice rise,_ program and prepare grant appl ications. Possess Bachelor s Degree in urban or environmental planning, law, real estate or related field. Five years of land acquisition related work experience. Knowledge of real estate, state and local government structures. Good computer knowledge including word processing and spreadsheet. Must have valid driver's license. Salary range: $46,959 - $70,533. Please submit resume to: Lake County Forest Preserve District, Human Resources Department, 2000 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Libertyville, IL 60048, 847 - 367 -6640, by Aug. 8. (posted 719112003) The Nature Conservancy (VA), Director, Clinch Valley Program. - The Nature Conservancy seeks a politically savvy individual to implement a comprehensive program to protect biodiversity, recognize critical threats and expand the Conservancy's role as a conservation partner in the Clinch Valley of VA and TN. Director will collaboratively engage scientific, state, federal and local partners in these efforts and will develop and negotiate innovative solutions to apply a full range of conservation tools to further protect the landscape; assist in raising public and private funds ensuring ample resources for the project. For requirements visit nature.ong /careers. (posted 71312003) Teton Regional Land Trust (ID), Land Protection Specialist - TRLT is an established regional land trust working to protect the natural and agricultural resources of the Upper Snake River Valley of eastern Idaho. strategies; and administer land protection . working groups. The successful candidate will use their land protection, natural resource and fundraising experience to assure that land protection program elements are in compliance with TRLT policy and LTA Standards and Practices. Complete job description: www.tetoniandtrust.org /join job openings.htm. Cover letter and resume to mike@tetonlandtrust.org, or PO Box 247, Driggs, ID 83422. Applicant review process begins August 15. (posted 613012003) Continued on page 8 65 6G, Page 8 farmland preservation report Continued from page 7 Heritage Conservancy (PA), Resource Protection Specialist- Heritage Conservancy is seeking a Resource Protection Specialist. Candidate will be responsible for promoting and marketing conservation programs which preserve natural and historic resources. The essential functions of this position include: identifying and evaluating projects which will result in protection /acquisition of critical resources; negotiating with landowners'and designing strategies for creative facilitation with public and private markets. Education requirements include BA /BS in land planning, landscape architecture, environmental science, government policy or business with an environmental science minor. A minimum of five years experience in land planning or real estate is necessary. Starting salary around $40,000 +/- with excellent benefits. Forward cover letter, resume and salary history and requirements to Heritage Conservancy, Attn: HR, 85 Old Dublin Pike, Doylestown PA 18901 or syoung@heritageconservancy.org. (posted 51231 2003) CONFERENCES Sept. 11 -14, Atlanta, GA: Rail- Volution: Building Livable . Communities with Transit, multiple sponsors. Fifty work- shops, 14 mobile workshops focusing on building commu- nity participation, finding money and creative design in a movement to save America's cities and curb sprawl. Cost: $350 by Aug. 14. See www.railvolution.com. Sept. 30 - Oct. 5, Denver, CO: New Frontiers in Preserva- tion, national conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Focus areas include: rural and landscape preservation, downtown revitalization in the age of sprawl; preservation of post -war resources; diversifying the preser- vation movement; preservation, planning and real estate. Cost: $295 by July 31. Register online or see brochure at www.nthpconference.org. Oct. 16 -19, Sacramento, CA: Land Trust Alliance Rally 2003. Fee: $300 by Aug. 18. See LTA.org. Nov. 11 -13, Thompsonville, MI: Seeds of Prosperity: Food, Farms and Michigan's Economic Future, presented by the Michigan Land Use Institute. Entrepreneurial agriculture is focus. Keynote speakers include: Jay Healy, former Massa- chusetts Agriculture Commissioner, Neil Hamilton, Drake University Agricultural Law Center. Cost: $195 by Sept. 15. See www.miui.org or call 231- 882 -4723 x 18. July - Aug. 2003 COPYRIGHT NOTICE It is unlawful to reproduce this publication and distrib- ute it to other locations or agencies. If you have a spe- cial need, please contact the publisher. Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! Can't find it on the web? Need a quick answer for an update? Want to get smart for that up- coming presentation? Call or email us. We're faster, friend- lier and smarter than the webl When you have news — or views •- give us a call. We're always eager to hear from you and to provide additional in- formation to help you get up to speed with the nation's best- informed farmland preservation professionals ... FPR subscribers! Welcome! . Phone 410 692 -2708 - Fax 410 692 -9741 E -Mail bowerspub @hotmail.com -- Address — Bowers Publishing, Inc. 900 LaGrange Rd. Street, MD 21154 . ens Page 5 of 11 6'1 Many businesses and government facilities have implemented formal Environmental Management Systems to systematically manage their environmental and health safety activities. An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a cycle of planning, implementing, reviewing, and improving the processes and actions that an organization undertakes to meet its business and environmental goals. Most Environmental Management Systems are built on what the EPA calls a "plan, do, check, act" model. This includes identifying environmental aspects and establishing goals, implementing those goals, monitoring .and taking corrective action, and reviewing to make necessary changes. The guidance is intended to increase the use of Environmental Management Systems in civil legal settlements. The guidance document also explains how these management systems will be used to address the root causes of violations of U.S. environmental laws and regulations and the risks these violations pose to communities and ecosystems. The agency is working with the U.S. Department of Justice to implement Environmental Management Systems in appropriate criminal plea agreements to achieve beneficial outcomes for the environment. The EPA has issued a memorandum to encourage and expand the use of these management systems in enforcement settlements and in community involvement. The guidance is an extension of the Environmental Protection Agency's May 2002 position statement on Environmental Management Systems, in which the agency committed to promote their use and emphasize their adoption to achieve improved environmental performance and compliance and pollution prevention through reduction of waste and hazardous materials at the source: Open Space Enhances Nearby Property Values http: // ens - news. com /ens /jun2003/2003- 06- 13- 09.asp 06/16/2003 Wil W1161 UNIVERSITY PARK, Pennsylvania, June 13, 2003 (ENS) - Researchers at Penn State's College of Agriculture Studies have found that agriculture and and other land uses that provide open space increase the value of houses located within a quarter mile radius. Landfills and large scale animal operations lower the value of nearby homes. The researchers collected sales prices and other information on more than 8,000 Berks County, Pennsylvania, homes sold between 1998 and 2002, along with information on nearby land uses. A geographic information system and statistical tools were used to analyze the data. Berks County was chosen because it is . experiencing rapid development in its farmland areas and because data were readily available and the county has a mix of land uses and agricultural production. Open space, including forested acreage and grass, pasture and cropland located within a quarter mile of a house, had the largest positive effect on the value of that house, the study says. Large lot, single family residential land had a positive effect almost as large. Commercial, small lot single family residential, multi -unit residential, and industrial land uses were less favorable for nearby property values. These results can be used to predict the effect of land use change on nearby residential property values, says Richard Ready, an assistant professor of agricultural and environmental economics and co- author of the study. "This kind of information can be used by local officials to evaluate the consequences of planning and zoning decisions and efforts to preserve open space in their communities." "Undoubtedly, there will be interest in applying the Berks County results elsewhere," says co- author Charles Abdalla. "But until more research is conducted in areas with conditions that differ from Berks County, care should be used in trying to generalize these results." http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003-06-13-09.asp Page 6of11 06/16/2003 ens Page 7 of 11 6 Yl t The research was funded by the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, and by Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future. Read the report at: http : / /www.landuse.aers.psu.edu/ Potato Growers Honored For Environmental Actions WASHINGTON, DC, June 13, 2003 (ENS) - A partnership between WWF, the conservation organization, Wisconsin potato growers, and university researchers to reduce pesticide use received the Department of Agriculture's "Secretary's Honor Award." Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman presented the award to the Eco- Potato Partnership for "maintaining and enhancing the nation's natural resources and environment." The six year collaboration between the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, the University of Wisconsin, and WWF resulted in the accelerated adoption of integrated pest management systems .and reduced reliance on toxic pesticides. The partnership led to the establishment of Protected Harvest, an independent ecolabel. Wisconsin potatoes are the first product certified under the Protected Harvest label- and are marketed under the brand "Healthy Grown." To qualify for . the Protected Harvest seal, crop management practices must be employed that reduce the use of toxic pesticides, improve soil and water quality, and protect wildlife habitat. "The World Wildlife Fund is thrilled about the success of the Eco- Potato Partnership and pleased that the Department of Agriculture supports the work of conventional farmers who are finding ways to reduce their environmental impact while remaining competitive," said Jason Clay, vice president of the WWF's Center for Conservation Innovation and a member of Protected Harvest's board of directors. http: // ens - news.com /ens /jun2003/2003- 06- 13- 09.asp 06/16/2003 and Use Vol. 31 No. 13 aw Re June 18, 2003 SLANTS & TRENDS THE THREE DISSENTING JUDGES in City of Suffolk v. Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Suffolk (story, p. 98) contended the majority opin- ion allowed creation of a vested property right based on nothing more than conceptual land -use plans accompanying a rezoning rather than the "specific project" required by the statute. They also argued that allowing actions taken five or more years after the relevant governmental action to constitute "diligent pursuit" permitting establishment of vested rights did not comply with the terms and conditions for vesting enacted by the legislature. It may turn out that the vesting law the Virginia legislature passed in 1998 may not provide developers with the sense of certainty they claimed was missing under court interpretations of vesting, after all. CRITICIZED BY SOME as one of the most con- servative federal appeals court in the nation, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently has shown a somewhat surprising pro - government attitude to- ward environmental regulations. Witness, for ex- ample, its decisions upholding endangered species designations. A recent ruling upholding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers view as to the scope of its ju- risdiction under the Clean Water Act (story, p. 99) predictably outraged the National Association of Home Builders and gave comfort to environmen- talists. The court ruled that because water draining from wetlands into a roadside ditch eventually made its way to a navigable waterway, the Corps could exercise its jurisdiction over drainage works the landowners excavated in the wetlands without benefit of a Clean Water Act permit. In a press release issued by the home builders June 13, NAHB president Kent Conine said, "the Inside Vested Rights e 97 Rezoning Vested Right to Develop........ Page 98 Wetlands Corps' Jurisdiction Upheld .................... Page 99 Environmental Review No Right to Second Review ................. Page 100 Right to Farm No Building Permit Required .............. Page 101 Takings Futility Argument Fails ........................ Page 102 Nonconforming Uses Second -Story Addition Approved........ Page 104 court has transformed virtually every front and back yard in the mid - Atlantic lying next to a man - dug ditch into waterfront property." The association is considering seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The association's rhetoric appears a bit over- blown. One needs to bear in mind that the initial problem arose because the landowners dug a drain- age ditch on property they had been advised was a wetland, and against.the advice of a Soil Conserva- tion Service official. It is not likely that every homeowner who happens to have a low spot in his front yard can expect a visit from the Corps. ATLANTA IN TRAFFIC TROUBLE? On June 16, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined three other appeals court in ruling EPA should have reclassified the city's air pollution as "severe." The city may have only a year to deal with the problem, possibly by severe traffic restrictions. Business Publishers, Inc. • 8737 Colesviile Rd. • Suite 1100 • Silver Spring, MD 20910 -3928 • Leonard A. Eiserer, President & Publisher Editorial Director: Charlotte Wright Editor: James D. Lawlor, Esq, A& Land Use Law Report (ISSN 1064 - 0401), published 25 times a year. Subscription rate: $397 per year (includes shipping). For subscribers outside North l'-^ft America, please add $16. Six -month and multiple -year rates available on request. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to BPI, 8737 Colesville Rd., fTTM #1100, Silver Spring, MD 20910 -3928. Editorial: (301) 587 -6300; FAX (301) 587 -1081; Customer Service: (301) 589.5103 or (800) 274 -6737; FAX (301) 589- 8 P 8493. For fastest service, please Include, account number when you call or write. For information on reprints, contact Copyright Clearance Center, (978) 750 - Ioyew 8400. To purchase documents flagged W, call 1- 800 - 274 -6737. Land Use Law Report is also available electronically via Gale Group, 1- 800- 347 -4253. otExcofteme Come visit our Web site at http:ltwww.bpinews.com 'IM-2003 Reproduction in any form prohibited without the express permission from publisher. 0 Copyright Business Publishers, Inc. 2003 T. Page 98 Land Use Law Report June 18, 2003 Vested Rights Rezoning Gave Developer Right To Complete Phased Project The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled a 1988 rezoning gave a developer a vested right to com- plete construction of a planned unit development under the zoning established by the rezoning, not- withstanding any subsequent zoning change (City of Suffolk v. Board of Zoning Appeals for.-the City of Suffolk, No. 021981, June 6, 2003). The case was the court's first opportunity to interpret a 1998 law that changed the criteria for vesting of development rights. In 1985, Etheridge Manor Corp. (Etheridge) bought a 164 -acre parcel in Suffolk. In 1988, the city rezoned the Etheridge property and the land of an adjoining landowner from rural residential to planned development housing. It also approved a master land -use plan for the development. The plan called for a mixed -use mixed density project in- cluding medium- and high - density residential de- velopment and commercial uses. The adjoining landowner fell into financial dif- ficulties which delayed the joint development. Etheridge decided to proceed alone. In 1994, the city approved Etheridge's request to rezone 10 acres of its parcel to general business and changed the proposed residential development to low den- sity. New Zoning Ordinance Enacted In 1996, Etheridge submitted a preliminary subdivision plan for part of the remaining 154 acres. It filed a final plan in 1998. No action was taken on that plan before the city enacted a new development ordinance in 1999. That ordinance changed the zoning of the 154 acres to "commerce park" and "office - institutional." The zoning ad- ministrator determined Etheridge had vested rights in the 10 -acre general business parcel, but not in the rest of the land. The board of zoning appeals reversed, finding Etheridge had vested rights in the original zoning of the 154 acres. The trial court af- firmed the board's determination. The city ap- pealed. The supreme court noted that before 1998, its cases had held landowners generally had no vested property right in the continuation of a particular zoning status, except under limited circumstances. In that year, the legislature passed a law setting criteria that, if satisfied, conclusively vest property rights regardless of subsequent zoning changes. It provides that a landowner's rights are deemed vested if the landowner obtains a significant af- firmative governmental act allowing development of a specific project; the landowner relies in good faith on that act, and incurs extensive obligations or expense in diligently pursuing the specific project. The city conceded the 1988 rezoning was. a significant governmental act, but argued it was not for development of a specific project. It relied on two cases decided before the 1998 legislation was passed to support its argument that detailed devel- opment plans are required before a property owner can obtain vested rights. However, the court said, the plain language of the 1998 law makes it clear that vested rights occur when any one of the six types of actions listed occurs. The court rejected the city's contention that a "specific project" can be found only where the de- veloper has filed a site plan for the entire property. No such requirement existed in the statute, it said. The board of zoning appeals and the trial court both recognized that the object of the 1988 rezoning was a specific tract. The master land -use plans filed es- tablished the highway entrances, the general road plan and recreation areas, as well as the areas des- ignated residential and commercial. That supported the implied conclusion of the trial court and the board that the rezoning was directed to a specific project. Developer Worked Diligently The city also argued Etheridge had not dili- gently pursued the project, pointing out little was done between 1988 and 1994. However, that was not relevant because Etheridge did proceed dili- gently between 1993 and 1999, when the new zon- ing ordinance was adopted. During this time, Etheridge spent over $158,000 in developing the property. The city argued those expenditures were for the already approved a portion of the development, but the uncontradicted testimony of Etheridge's engi- neer established that the infrastructure put in place was well in excess of the needs of the approved development, and was intended to serve the entire property. The court's opinion is available from BPPs DocuDial service, No. 39 -4826, 24 p. Land Use Law Report welcomes readers' com- ments, questions and suggestions. You can reach the editor, James D. Lawlor, by mail at Business Publishers, Inc., 8737 Colesville Rd., #1100, Silver Spring, MD 20910 -3928, by telephone at (301) 649 -5872, or via e -mail, land - law@boo.net. © 2003 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. June 18, 2003 Land Use Law Report Page 99 Wetlands Roadside Ditch Within Jurisdiction Of Corps of Engineers A roadside ditch is within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction, where water flowing in it eventually reaches navi- gable waters, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled (United States v. Deaton, No. Q2 -1442, June 12, 2003). Therefore, landowners' failure to obtain a permit from the Corps before digging a drainage ditch on their wetlands property violated the CWA, because the water from their ditch drained into the roadside ditch. James and . Rebecca Deaton own 12 a_ cres of land in Wicomico County on Maryland's'Eastern Shore. The parcel slopes toward a drainage ditch running beside a county road. Surface water from the property drains into the ditch, which then drains into a culvert under the road that connects to an- other ditch leading to Perdue Creek. Perdue Creek, in turn, flows into Beaverdam Creek, a tributary of the Wicomico River, a navigable branch of the Chesapeake Bay. Subdivision Had `Wet Feet' The Deatons bought the property in 1989, planning to develop it with a small residential sub- division. Because much of the land was poorly drained, they decided to dig an 1,100- foot -long ditch through the center of the property, without obtaining a CWA permit. In an earlier opinion, United States v. Deaton, 209 F.3d 331 (2000) the 4th Circuit held the piling of material dredged from the ditch along its banks (sidecasting) without a permit violated the CWA. The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court de- cided Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States, 531 U.S. 159. In that decision, the high court ruled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) exceeded its statutory authority when it interpreted the CWA as covering isolated waters not hydrologically connected to navigable waters. In light of that decision, the Deatons moved for reconsideration of the CWA jurisdictional issue. The district court denied the motion, and issued an order directing the Deatons to fill in the ditch. The Deatons' principal argument on appeal was that the Corps had no authority over the roadside ditch and thus could not regulate their wetlands, the appeals court observed. Section 404 (a) of the CWA requires a permit for discharge of fill mate- rial into "navigable waters." The CWA defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States" and the Corps' jurisdictional regulations define waters of the United States as including traditional navigable waters, tributaries of covered waters, and wetlands adjacent to covered waters and their tributaries. The Corps thus claimed jurisdiction over the Deatons' property because it is adjacent to a roadside ditch that is a tributary of the Wicomico River. Congress' authority over the "channels of inter- state commerce" under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution is broad enough. to permit it to enact laws to prevent the use of navigable waters for injurious purposes, the court said. For example, Congress may bar the use of navigable waters to dump fill material. The power over navigable wa- ters also includes the authority to regulate nonnavi- gable waters when regulation is necessary to pro- tect navigable waters, the court continued. Any pollutant that degrades the quality of water in a tributary of navigable waters potentially could de- grade the quality of the navigable waters them- selves. If Congress has that power, it may delegate it to the Corps. Corps' Interpretation Reasonable The Deatons argued that even if the Corps' authority reaches nonnavigable tributaries, the roadside ditch is not a tributary at all, or alterna- tively is not a tributary of a navigable water. Dic- tionary definitions of "tributary" differ, the court noted. It may refer to the entire feeder system for a navigable water or only rivers or streams flowing into larger bodies of water, depending on which dictionary one consults. The existence of alternate definitions of a term, each making some sense under the regulation, indi- cates the regulation itself is open to interpretation. The Corps has consistently argued "tributaries" re- ferred to all tributaries. Because that long- standing interpretation has support in the dictionary and elsewhere, it is not plainly erroneous and is entitled to deference, the court said. To support the Corps' current interpretation of its jurisdiction, which differs from the interpreta- tion it adopted in 1974 shortly after the CWA was passed, the court need only conclude that the Corps' interpretation is sufficiently rational to pre- clude a court from substituting its judgment for that of the Corps, it said. The Corps argued that dis- charges into nonnavigable tributaries and adjacent wetlands have a substantial effect on the water quality of navigable waters. This nexus, in light of congressional concerns for protection of water © 2003 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. (Continued on page 100) q) lIt Page 100 Land Use Law Report June 18, 2003 Roadside Ditch (Continued from page 99) quality, is sufficient to allow the Corps to reasona- bly determine that it has jurisdiction over the whole tributary system of any navigable waterway, the court declared. The court's opinion is available from BPI's DocuDial service, No. 39-4827,20p. Environmental Review: Town Board Bound by Lead Agerdy Determination, Court Rules The New York Court of Appeals has ruled a town environmental agency that had the opportu- nity to participate in a coordinated environmental review of a proposed project, but did not act on it, is bound by the lead agency's declaration that the project had no significant environmental impact (Gordon v. Rush, No. 70, June 5, 2003). Storms during the winter of 1992 -93 caused significant erosion of the beaches in Bridgehamp- ton, in the Long Island town of Southampton. Oceanfront property owners requested permission from the town to install steel bulkheads on the sea- ward side of the beach's primary dune, to reduce further erosion. They also submitted permit appli- cations to the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which also had jurisdiction because the bulkheads would be built within tidal wetlands. The town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) administrator advised DEC that the town did not want to assume lead agency status over the coordinated review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( SEQRA) because the project could have impacts beyond the local level. State Agency Finds No Impact DEC agreed to take lead agency status, and af- ter getting the applicants' agreement to move the proposed bulkheads to the landward side of the primary dune, issued a negative declaration finding no environmental impact statement had to be pre- pared because there would not be a significant im- pact on the environment. When the landowners submitted their amended applications to the CEHA administrator, he refused to issue permits because placing the bulkheads landward of the primary dune was prohibited by the town code. The landowners appealed to the town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review. It decided to conduct a new SEQRA review. In 1995, the board issued a resolution declaring itself the lead agency and making a positive declaration requiring the landowners to prepare a draft environmental impact statement. The landowners sued to overturn the board's resolution. The trial court annulled the resolution, and the intermediate appellate court af- firmed the trial court's ruling. Board Slept on Its Rights The Court of Appeals noted the DEC acted as lead agency for the coordinated SEQRA review at the request of the town's CEHA administrator. As the primary liaison with DEC under the CEHA, the administrator received copies of both DEC's letter to the landowners listing options for modifying their permit applications and the negative declara- tions of environmental impact. The board thus had notice of those matters and yet failed to advise DEC of any relevant concerns, as it should have done pursuant to SEQRA regulations. The board did not voice its objections until af- ter receiving copies of the negative declarations and the tidal wetlands permits. Its decision to conduct an independent review was unauthorized, the court said. It was bound by DEC's negative declaration, which properly identified the agencies involved and notified those agencies of its decision. If the board wished to challenge the issuance of the tidal wet- lands permits, it should have proceeded by way of a court petition to review them. DEC's decision to issue a negative declaration was not irrational, an abuse of discretion, or arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court concluded, it should not be disturbed. The court's opinion is available from BPI's DocuDial service, No. 39 -4828, 5 p. The Special Report: The Outlook for U.S. Military Construction & Housing: Fiscal 2003 -2004 is now available! Developing business opportunities is much more diffi- cult during this time of economic uncertainty. But the op- portunities are there, even if they may be harder to deter- mine. This Special Report provides you with a complete list- ing of commercial opportunities available from government programs in military construction and housing. Included within this publication is an overview of the federal budgets for 2003 and 2004, followed by project -by- project listings and their individual appropriations. This Special Report also features an exclusive perspec- tive on the current and future state of the U.S. Military Con- struction and Housing market. This is your opportunity to know where the most lucrative business opportunities are and to stay ahead of your competition! For more information, call Customer Service at 1 -800- 274 -6737 or e -mail at custsery @bpinexs.conr. © 2003 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. June 18, 2003 Land Use Law Report Page 101 ;I Right to Farm No Building Permit Required For Farm - Worker Housing The Arizona Court of Appeals (Div. One) has ruled a state law exempting land used for "agricul- tural purposes" from planning and zoning regula- tions exempted a farm operator planning to build housing for farm workers on its property from complying with a county's building permit "process (Braden Trust v. County of Yuma, 1 CA -CV 01- 415, June 3, 2003). Braden Trust owns the 7,500- acre Texas Hill Farms in Yuma County. It proposed to renovate farm dwellings and construct additional housing for farm workers at the farm. The county's Department of Development Services told Braden any building or renovation of residential structures was subject to the building permit process and the requirements of the county building code. Believing state law exempted construction of farm - worker housing from the building code, the trust sued, seeking an order directing the county to exempt it from complying with the building permit process. The trial court ruled the farm- worker housing was construction incidental to farming and agriculture and thus was not subject to the county's building and zoning codes. The county appealed. County's Argument: Housing Not Covered The appeals court noted the relevant statutory language provides that no county zoning ordinance may regulate the use of land for agricultural pur- poses if the tract is five or more acres in size. An- other provision states county building codes are not applicable to construction incidental to agriculture. The county argued a common -sense construction of that language did not include multifamily residen- tial structures of the type Braden proposed. It read the law as exempting only structures housing such items as agricultural products, farm implements and tools, not people. It argued farm- worker housing has a function independent of agricultural purposes and was not intended to serve agricultural purposes, as distinguished from a structure such as a barn. Braden argued the housing was incidental to agriculture because the occupants would be em- ployed full -time on the farm and providing on -site housing relieved workers of the burden of driving 30 miles or more to work from the nearest off -site housing. The court observed that the terms used in the statute are quite broad in scope and application. Although "agricultural purposes" is not defined in the statute, other laws illustrate its broad scope, the court said. For example, residential dwellings oc- cupied by agricultural employees are valued for taxation purposes as agricultural land. And in the context of agricultural employment relations, "agri- culture" is defined as all services performed on a farm, including recruiting, housing and feeding of agricultural employees. `Incidental' Construction Covered Construction incidental to farming or agricul- ture does not necessarily involve the primary func- tions of the farm, the court continued. It may con- cern functions that are tangentially related to the farm's principal activity. On -site housing for em- ployees can be said to be incidental to farming be- cause the availability of on -site housing benefits both the employer and employees in terms of safety and productivity. Because the statutory language is broad enough to include farm- worker housing and does not specifically preclude residential dwellings from the exemption from zoning and building codes, the housing proposed by Braden fell within the exemption, the court concluded. The court noted its conclusion was consistent with decisions from several other jurisdictions, in- cluding New York, Illinois and Kansas. The court said it did not share the county's concern that the statutory exemption could be abused to the point where any structure can be exempt so long as it serves a farmer or farm workers, describing the county's concern as merely speculative. Given the broad language of the statute, it was clear the leg- islature intended to favor agriculture by limiting governmental control over farm property. The court observed it had no power to change legislative en- actments. If residential dwellings are to be ex- cluded from the statutory exemption, the change must come from the legislature. The court's opin- ion is available from BPI's DocuDial service, No. 39 -4829, 18 p. Reward Offered for Information on Copyright Violations As part of an industrywide effort to protect newsletters from copyright violations, Business Publishers, publisher of Land Use Law Report (LULR) offers a $1000 reward to persons who provide conclusive evidence of illegal photo- copying or faxing of its publications. Confidentiality is guar- anteed. Under federal copyright law (17 USC 101 et seq.) it is il- legal to reproduce this newsletter by any means for any internal or external purpose without written permission from the publisher. Permission is granted liberally to make copies of specific stories through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service (TRS), provided a fee of $2 per page is paid to: CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. The TRS code for this newsletter is 1064- 0401/03 +$2.00. © 2003 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Y9 �r 0 Page 102 Land Use Law Report June 1.8, 2003 Takings Futility Argument Fails In Regulatory Taking The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Di- vision has ruled a landowner's regulatory taking claim was not ripe for adjudication, because the landowner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies (United Savings Bank v. New Jersey De- partment of Environmental Protection, :,,No. A- 5125- 01T2, June 4, 2003). Between 1987 and 1991, United Savings Bank (USB) loaned money to a developer, Terra -Tech Development Corp., that planned to develop a resi- dential subdivision on 61.4 acres of '. land in Gibbsboro Township. Terra -Tech defaulted on its mortgage in 1991, and USB foreclosed. Title to the property eventually passed to USB in 1995. By that time, Terra -Tech had final municipal approval for the first section of the development. Part of the property contained wetlands, initially under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 1994, however, jurisdiction over the wetlands passed to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).When USB inquired of DEP about its situation following transfer of wetlands regulatory jurisdiction, DEP replied that USB would have to get permits to further develop the property. Endangered Species Endangers Project Sometime between 1986 and 1996, Hellonias Bullatta, or "swamp pink," a plant on the state and federal endangered species lists, was found on the property. In 1996, DEP's director of land use regulation replied to an expression of interest in the property from the Nature Conservancy. In part, the letter from Richard Kropp said the development of the property could not proceed "due to the extent of disturbance a housing project would have on the wetlands, which cover the majority of the site." A copy of that letter was sent to USB. Later that year, USB filed an application to build on four lots in Section 1 of the property and later filed an amended application covering 12 acres in Section 2. DEP initially rejected the application for Sec- tion 1 on the ground it did not adequately document how impacts on wetlands would be minimized. It refused to proceed with the Section 2 application until USB paid an $11,400 application fee. Eventu- ally, DEP issued permits for two houses in Section 1. USB did not proceed with its Section 2 applica- tion. Instead, it sought a declaratory ruling from USB that "there is no set of circumstances upon which the department would issue an individual wetland permit" covering 35 houses in Section 2. DEP did not respond. USB filed an inverse condemnation action against DEP in 2001. The trial court granted DEP's motion for summary judgment, ruling USB had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. It might be factually more accurate to say USB failed to initiate the formal administrative process, the appeals court remarked. USB claimed it was not required to file an actual permit application or pay the application fee because the result was a fore- gone conclusion. Therefore, it argued, the futility doctrine allowed it to cut short the demonstrated process and proceed directly to court. The appeals court disagreed. Owner Must Follow Administrative Process Whatever the scope of the futility doctrine may be, the court said, it does not come into play before the applicant even files a request for administrative relief, at least if the agency has some discretion to grant the relief. Preliminary statements from ad- ministrative officers, even if they appear conclu- sive, remain preliminary. The landowner must give the administrative body an opportunity to exercise its discretion. In this case, the court continued, USB never told DEP precisely what it planned for Section 2. While full -scale development might not have been possible, a smaller project might have been feasible by using upland areas and limited filling of wet- lands. The court noted that in Section 1, USB had shown a measure of flexibility, suggesting a similar approach might have applied to Section 2. Requir- ing a permit does not amount to a taking, it contin- ued. There is no taking until the landowner has pur- sued the available regulatory process to its conclu- sion. Even if a permit is denied, there may be other viable uses for the land. Only when a permit is de- nied and the denial prevents economically viable use of the land has a taking occurred, the court con- cluded. The court's opinion is available fi -oin BPI's DocuDial service, No. 39 -4830, 4 p. I DocuDial Service W Copies of documents flagged by a phone in LULR may be pur- chased through DoeuDial, a service of Business Publishers, Inc. By giving your subscription account number, VISA, MasterCard and AMEX information, and the document's five- or six -digit code, you can receive the documents you choose by Fax, mail or express delivery. The service costs $10 per call for any number of documents, plus $ I per page, per document ordered. For over- night delivery, add $20 or give your Federal Express account number and you can have it billed directly to you or your organi- zation. For more information or to place your order. call (800) 274 -6737 (USA) or (301) 589 -5103 (outside USA). © 2003 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. June 18, 2003 Land Use Law Report Page 103 Briefly Noted FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA., SUPERVISORS gave . the go -ahead June 16 for a new residen- tial/office /commercial complex in the Tyson's Cor- ner area, touted as the future downtown of Fairfax. The complex, which will feature nine high -rise towers , four of them 30 stories tall, will be built between two existing shopping malls and alongside a proposed metro station. The station would be one of four to be built along a proposed Metrorail ex- tension to Tyson's Corner, and eventually, Dulles International Airport. There is one fly in the oint- ment, however. The rail extension has not been funded by Congress. Although the supervisors voted 8 -0 for the project, one, Stuart Mendelsohn, said, "the great fear is the density comes and rail never comes." Developer Lerner Enterprises is the first to take advantage of a new county policy en- couraging building near public transit facilities. Because of the future metro stop, the project got a density bonus raising the allowable square footage from 1.9 million square feet to 4.1 million square feet. Lerner also tripled the amount of space allo- cated to housing under another county policy in- tended to encourage construction of housing rather than offices. The deal has an escape clause. If funding for the Metrorail extension is not a place by 2005, the supervisors can rescind the density bonus. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT declined this week to take an appeal from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Esplanade Proper- ties, LLC v. Seattle, No. 02 -1304. The lower court's decision is discussed in LULR, Oct. 9, 2002, p. 163. A developer denied permits to build houses over tideland in Elliott Bay sued the city for a regulatory taking. The appeals court ruled that Washington state's public trust doctrine, which vests ownership of the shores of navigable waters in the state, precluded private construction over tidelands. Because the developer bought its prop- erty subject to the state -law limitation on what could be done with the land, there was no taking, the court said. The developer never had any right to use the tidelands in a way that would substantially impair the public trust, it concluded. VISITABILITY: The Escanabia, Mich., City Council unanimously approved an ordinance June 5 authorizing a $150 cash payment to residents who take steps to make their homes more accessible to persons using wheelchairs. Accessibility advocates say the ordinance is the first of its kind. To be eli- gible for the payment, new single - family dwellings would have to provide at least one wheelchair - accessible and trends entrance, service by a "visi- table route." First -floor doorways would have to have a minimum clear opening of at least 32 inches and be fitted with lever -type hardware. First floor hallways would have to be at least 36 inches wide, and first floor bathrooms must have design features to accommodate handicapped persons. IN OTHER VISITABILITY NEWS, a trial court judge in Tucson, Ariz., last week upheld the constitutionality of the Pima County Inclusive Home Design Ordinance. The local home builders association reportedly will appeal the decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals. HOUSING STARTS ROSE 6.1 percent in May, the U.S. Commerce Department reported June 17. Single - family starts were up 1.5 percent, and the volatile multi - family market posted a 29.2 percent gain. Building permits were also up, rising 3.7 percent over the May pace' *'National Associa- tion of Home Builders President Kent Conine commented that bad weather in April slowed down construction, and it is likely that continuing poor weather in the East and parts of the Midwest and West may have slowed construction in May as well. That suggested, he said, that June also may see solid gains. By region, starts were up 14 percent in the Midwest, 7.4 percent in the South and 0.7 percent in the West. Starts in the Northeast fell 1.3 percent. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIF., su- pervisors passed an ordinance June 3 that would respect restrict the ability of "big box" stores to op- erate full- service grocery stores. The ordinance en- acted by the San Francisco Bay area suburb pro- vides that stores over 90,000 square feet in size could devote no more than five percent of the floor area to the sale of such non - taxable items as gro- ceries. A regional representative of Wal -Mart, Amy Halley Hill, who spoke at the hearing to consider the ordinance, commented, "this is clearly aimed at Wal- Mart —make no mistake." Wal -Mart is cur- rently fighting a similar ordinance in Tucson, Ariz. Hill said the company will explore its options, in- cluding possible legal action or supporting a refer- endum to overturn the ordinance. Supporters of the ordinance charged superstores often drive tradi- tional grocery stores out of business. © 2003 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. l� Page 104 Land Use Law Report June 18, 2003 Nonconforming Uses Landowner May Add Second Story To Nonconforming Structure The Connecticut Appeals Court has issued an- other in a recent series of opinions discussing the vertical expansion of nonconforming structures (See LULR, April 23, p.70; May 7, p.76). The court held homeowners could add a second story to their house, a legal nonconforming use, that`.-intruded into the rear setback area (Vivian v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Clinton, No. AC 22472, June 10, 2003). Rudolph and Sophie Reu own a house on Wa- terside Lane in Clinton. The structure violates the setback requirements on one side and the rear. They applied for permission to build a second story dor- mer that would add four rooms to the building. The vertical expansion would not increase the size of the house's nonconforming footprint. After the zoning enforcement officer approved the applica- tion, the Reus' next -door neighbor, James Vivian, appealed. The zoning board of appeals upheld the enforcement officer's determination. The trial court dismissed Vivian's appeal from the board's deci- sion. Court Explains `Building Envelope' In his appeal, Vivian argued the trial court im- properly concluded that the zoning regulations' setback requirements have no vertical component. He argued there was no logical way for the court to conclude that setback requirements apply only at ground level when the zoning regulations have ex- press exemptions for marquees, canopies and simi- lar structures. The appeals court noted a setback is the distance between the point where a building touches the ground and the property line. It neces- sarily rises into the sky even though the regulations do not expressly say so. Likewise, the noncon- formity of a structure has a vertical component that adheres to the footprint of the building. over the existing nonconforming footprint, the Reus were not expanding the building into the setback to include land not subject to the nonconformity. Therefore, the court said, the trial court properly ruled the Reus' application conformed to the set- back regulations. The board did not apply the regulations to the facts of this case in an unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal manner, the court continued. In the past, the zoning enforcement officer had approved applica- tions to expand nonconforming buildings vertically. Historically, Clinton has not required a variance for the vertical expansion of a nonconforming building. When voting to approve the Reus' application, members of the board said past practice should take precedence, and that the board would be changing the current zoning regulations if it were to allow Vivian's appeal. Vivian failed to meet his burden of proving that the board acted improperly, the court concluded. The court's opinion is available from BPI's DocuDial service, No. 39 -4831, 10 p. END ------------=---------- I LAND USE LAW REPORT I 8737 Colesviile Rd., #1100, Silver Spring, MD 20910 -3928 Use this coupon to subscribe. ❑ YES, sign me up for a new subscription[ I ❑ Print Only: $397' ❑ E -mail (PDF format): $337 '$10 First class postage Included. I (Maryland addresses add 5% sales tax.) ❑ Check enclosed (payable Land Use Law Report) I ❑ Charge to: ❑ Visa ❑ MasterCard ❑ AMEX Card # - -- — Exp• -- ❑ Bill my organization. P,O. # (required) Signature (required on all orders)____ (Payment due upon receipt of invoice.) I PLEASE PRINT Name - - -- -- -- - - - - -- I Title — — _ - -- —_ —_ Organization Address_— -- ___ - -- I City /State /Zip +4 -- - - -- — I — I The regulations have an exception for intru- I Phone (__ —) __ -- I sions into the setback area, the court continued. I -- - - - - -- Marquees, canopies, eaves and similar projections I Fax No. can extend no more than five feet into the required I Email: (required for PDF delivery)____ - - -- - -__ —_ setback area. The court agreed with Vivian that a I I setback must be the space extending from the I m For fastest service: ground to the sky rather than just an area at ground I Phone your order to (800) 274 -6737 I level. However, the trial court did not decide oth- I In DC Metro Area (301) 589 -5103 I erwise. The regulations do not say the footprint of a I or FAX to: (301) 589 -8493 g y p I nonconforming structure is capped at its existing I custsery @bpinews.com height. The pertinent language of the regulations is I Visit our website: www.bpinews.com a provision that no nonconforming building or I structure may be enlarged to include any land not subject to the nonconformity. By adding a dormer I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — @ 2003 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. r TAY M4 .F 0 to i C _ - yY ;6rtt,am."o 52, - o w, V Golden LEAF is the only foundation of substantial size operating from a rural base in North Carolina. This is significant, at least during these formative years, because Golden LEAF is in large part about rural people, about jobs for people who have lost jobs, about preserving a way of living and a way,:df' making a living. We are close to many of the people and com- munities that we serve, and where we are as we begin this Foundation's work makes a statement about who we are. Over the years these communities have had few philanthropic resources as they have struggled to adjust to changes in the economy and agricultural practices and the con- tinuing inequities that exist between urban and rural areas. Studies show that dollars and other assistance seldom have made their way to the countryside. Change is inevitable in the rural parts of our state, but we can manage that change so farms continue to be farms, so people have good - paying jobs close to their roots, so "development is a positive word, and so people remain parts of small communities that nurture them and instill succeeding generations with solid values unique to rural North Carolina —to rural America. The decline of the tobacco economy has taken its toll in the cities also --on workers in factories, in auction houses, and elsewhere in cities like Winston -Salem and Durham. Golden LEAF is addressing problems in those areas and across the state, but for the first time a major North Carolina foundation is going about its work with its feet firmly rooted in the rich soil of the State's farmland. That says something about Golden LEAF and its mission. Sz MLA,,�oURINU U As it matures —both in experience and in financial capability — Golden LEAF (Long -term Economic Advancement Foundation) remains focused on a specific purpose — helping tobacco - dependent and impacted communities deal with the consequences of tobacco's changing role in our state. Throughout this third year of operation, Golden LEAF has maintained a commitment to the long -term advancement of North Carolina, scoring remarkable successes in invest- ments and grants that will serve as major economic building blocks for years to come. To specifically address the overall decline in North Carolina's economy, Golden LEAF reassessed our programs and approaches. The result: in August 2002, the Foundation announced an $85.4 million economic stimulus initiative of targeted investments and grants— projected to generate more than $350 million in new investments in North Carolina over the next five years, creating some 25,000 new jobs. Building upon the Foundation's established priorities of agriculture, economic devel- opment and workforce preparedness, the economic stimulus initiative includes a major investment in venture funds which targets biotechnology companies that are developing or manufacturing products in North Carolina. Completing our third grant cycle, the Golden LEAF Board of Directors and staff believe the Foundation truly is measuring up to our challenges —the challenges of remaining accountable to the people of North Carolina, remaining true to our mission of bolstering .North Carolina's economy, and ensuring North Carolina's future competitiveness in the global marketplace. www.goIdenIeaf.org GOLDENLIEAF 2002 Annual Report 3 i� Letter from the Chairman on behalf of the Golden LEAF Board of Directors, we are pleased to present to you our 2002 Annual Report. As I have said numerous times, Golden LEAF wavcreated with the future in mind. The slate of 2002 Golden LEAF grants attests to our Board's long -term vision and our willingness to accept the risks inherent in searching out and funding the best projects to attain real and permanent eco- nomic advancement in North Carolina's tobacco - dependent areas. Golden LEAF's vision is no coincidence. It is the product of the hard work of fifteen North Carolinians, from the mountains to the coast, who take very seriously the challenge of using the resources of the Foundation most effectively. I thank our Board members, who have given their energy to an intense regimen of research, planning and meetings, putting their hearts and minds into doing what is right for North Carolina. our Board has made excellent grants to worthy projects — projects that are beginning to pay off and will continue to reap benefits for North Carolina's rural economy. We are pleased to see positive results in the areas of alternative crops and value -added agricultural products, community college and university scholarships, and collaborations between these educational institutions and industry to train the highly skilled workforce we must have to remain competitive. Economic develop- ment is indeed a long -term investment, and a critical component of any economic development project is worker training. A trained work force is essential in attracting businesses to North Carolina. just as impor- tant to the small entrepreneur is access to capital. We've given a big boost to hundreds of new and expanding small businesses through several exceptionally success- ful programs which leveraged a few hundred thousand dollars into millions in loans. Last summer, our Board spent a great deal of time discussing the drastic decline in North Carolina's econ- omy overall, and the role Golden LEAF could play in addressing it. In August 2002, in a temporary departure from Golden LEAF's policy of making grants only with income from invested funds, our Board introduced an economic stimulus package with two key components. First, we decided to create an $18.4 million grant pack- age from the Fou'ridation's principal, above and beyond our regular annual grant cycle, targeted at four critical economic development issues. Second —and after con- siderable research and discussion —we decided that we should give consideration to economic development with our investments of principal, as we do in our grantsmaking. For some time, Board members have discussed the tremendous economic potential the life sciences and biotechnology hold for North Carolina. Likewise, the investment potential of the biotechnology industry is exceptionally good. So, after extensive review, we decided to make investments in biotechnol- ogy a major Golden LEAF initiative. We are very proud of our progress over the past three years. As we enter our fourth year, we pledge that Golden LEAF will continue to search out the best appli- cations and make the best decisions possible in both our grantsmaking and our investments, so that our efforts will serve as economic building blocks for the years to come. S. Lawrence Davenport Chairman, Golden LEAF Measuring Up 4 As we come to the end of the third Golden LEAF grants cycle, we remain true to the mission of this Foundation. Since its incep- tion, Golden LEAF has been espe- cially visionary , in our approach to economic; development in North Caroling, looking for trans- formational opportunities to help tobacco - dependent or economi- cally impacted communities. Assessing the results of our two previous rounds of grants, we see thousands of jobs created and the tax bases of local communities strengthened. just as importantly, we have helped farmers remain on the farm. Golden LEAF grants have helped develop alternative crops and value - added processes for existing crops and helped farmers use them to replace lost tobacco income. Workers dis- placed by the loss of tobacco manufacturing jobs have been provided the valuable skills they need for better jobs in new and developing industries. These results attest to the value of the Foundation: helping improve the lives of families. Hence, we chose the theme "Measuring Up" for our 2002 annual report. Having taken measure of the needs of our state and awarded Golden LEAF grants accordingly, we are proud to report many positive outcomes. In this report you will find just a small sample of suc- cess stories from this year's 84 grants. We selected a cross - section to demonstrate the creativity and resource- fulness of organizations and institutions across the state, as they address our key priorities. • North and west of Winston- Salem, a wine industry now flourishes in the Yadkin Valley, newly designated the state's first American Viticultural Area. Thanks to Golden LEAF, the valley's several dozen vineyards GOLDENLEAE 2002 Annual Report and wineries have a source for highly trained employees from the Southeast's only two -year pro- gram in enology and viticulture at Surry Community College. And a grape- growers cooperative, with many former tobacco farmers as members, is build- ing its own winery in downtown Mount Airy. • In Johnston County, two of the county's top three employers have teamed up with Johnston Community College and the Johnston County Schools to provide cutting -edge training. One com- pany donated land for a training center the college will run to give workers the skills they need to suc- ceed in the state's burgeoning biotechnology indus- try, and a Golden LEAF grant got it all started. • Across the state, rural entrepreneurs are getting access to credit they may otherwise not have quali- fied for, thanks to Golden LEAF grants to capitalize lending programs of the Center for Community Self - Help and the Rural Economic Development Center. Leveraging grant funds as much as 20 to 1, these two programs help former tobacco farmers and workers, and others with good ideas, make their own way, and make jobs for others at the same time. Our Foundation made its first grants in 2000, and seeing so soon this kind of impact, from these and many other projects, is enormously exciting. It also illustrates the continuing impact Golden LEAF will have, over the long term, of helping North Carolinians deal with the decline of the tobacco economy. We see the wisdom of building on projects, and we see it, too, as evidence of our success and our long -term vision, setting us apart and demonstrating that we, indeed, are making a tangible difference in creating jobs as North Carolina's agriculture and manufacturing sectors shrink. Valeria L. Lee President, Golden LEAF 5 inemakers and grape growers in a seven - county area of North Carolina's Yadkin Valley region recently gained recognition and an important marketing tool when the area was named the state's first American Viticultural Area —the U.S. version of the French appellation d'origine controlee. Land that once grew tobacco now grows grapes as vineyards become increasingly popular and profitable. Many winemakers consider Yadkin Valley the best terroir, or wine -grape climate and growing conditions, in North Carolina. F Yadkhr-%, Valiny W i n (:'=�% Cam* R The region is rapidly gaining a reputation for high quality grapes and world -class wines, with produc- tion including Riesling, Chardonnay and Viognier white wine grapes, and cabernet and merlot reds. The effort is led by modern wine pioneers —many former tobacco growers— members of the Old North State Winegrowers Cooperative, a beneficiary of Golden LEAF grants since its inceptioh'in 2001. The burgeoning wine industry also has spawned a new academic program 'at Surry Community College in Dobson, where the Southeast's only viticulture degree program is offered. Dr. Frank Sells, president of the college, says Golden LEAF has been a major impetus in establishment of the program. "I don't see how we could have come this far without their grants," he said. "Our first Brant from Golden LEAF helped us get started, and then with growth in student interest, their additional funding helped us expand and modify the program." Community business leaders characterize the area's blossoming wine industry as a pursuit that has great potential for the Yadkin Valley region. "We believe vineyards will have a , major impact on the agricultural economy for years to come," said Ed Shelton of Shelton Vineyards in Surry County. "With tobacco farming on the decline, this is a great way to diversify the farming industry and open doors to new industries in the area. With the development of regional wineries, the tourism industry will ultimately follow." Dr. Sells agrees. "With the economic impact already being realized, the actual potential is on our doorstep. All Measuring Up sorts of things tie into winemaking — resorts, hotels, restaurants, enter- tainment, farm supplies, manufacturing and other essential parts of the industry. We're only on the threshold of what wine production can do for this economy." Golden LEAF made an initial grant to Surry Community College in 2000 to help develop the wine industry in Surry and neighboring counties. In 2002, Golden LEAF grants were used to expand the college's teach- " We'belleve vineyards will have a major- impact on the ing vineyard and winery agricultural economy for years to come. and continued develop- —Ed Shelton of Shelton Vineyards, Surry County ment of the area's wine grape industry, including providing equipment to set up Old North State's state -of- the -art winery in downtown Mount Airy. Expected to be operational for the 2003 fall harvest and crushing, the winery will bottle wines produced from cooperative members' grapes under its Carolina Harvest label or the growers' own labels. And the winery's retail shop will also feature other local products, broadening the economic benefit of wine - related tourism to include entrepreneurial efforts in other areas. "With the help of Golden LEAF, in a relatively short time we put together a quality program that is unique throughout the country," Dr. Sells said, noting that not only does Surry Community College offer the only viticulture degree program in this part of the country, it has its own campus winery in place to train students in the craft of fine winemaking. "This kind of progress on our part could not have been possible without the kind of support we have received from Golden LEAF," he maintains. "We're only on the threshold of what amine production can do for this economy." —Dr. Frank Sells, president of Surry Community College, Dobson GOLDENLEAF 2002 Annual Report 7 g� When western Johnston County, a center of North Carolina's once thriving tobacco trade, found itself becoming a hub of the worldwide bionnanufacturing industry, county leaders real- ized it was time to shift Johnston's economic focus and, ultimately, its identity. Wet lab at site of Johnston Community College's BioWorks program. Bayer's manufacturing site in Clayton, employing 1,550 people, is the world's largest plasma frac- tionation facility. Less than a mile down the road Novo Nordisk, with 350 employees, operates the only insulin production facility in the U.S. "Maintaining the vitality of this diverse industry can play a key role in ensuring the region's future economic health," said Charles Hayes, president and CEO of the 13- county Research Triangle Regional Partnership. And Johnston County leaders are making sure it happens. "We believe the best incentive we have to offer business is a prepared workforce that needs less training after employment," maintains Linwood Parker, chairman of the county Economic Development Advisory Board. The Board led area business leaders, government and education officials to request funding for the Clayton Skills Training Center, a state -of- the -art biomanufactu ring train- ing facility. Golden LEAF funding for a preliminary design report to help secure construction financing gave the idea a big boost early on. "The resulting grant allowed us to begin designing the training center," said Michael de Sherbinin, director of the Johnston County Economic Development Office. "Thanks to the Golden LEAF grant and our Board of Commissioners, we can assure these companies a reality —not false hope. The BioWorks training center will be in their back yard." The $3 million -plus facility, being built in cooperation with Johnston Community College and Johnston County Public Schools, will occupy a 28 -acre site in Clayton owned by Novo Nordisk. In addition to customized training for the likes of Bayer, Novo Nordisk and the nearby Fresenius Kabi, Johnston Community College anticipates that several other 8 Measuring Up businesses and industries are poised for significant expansion. JCC's Clayton Skills Training Center stands ready to prepare their work- force, with training at every level, from the BioWorks certificate pro- gram through bachelor's degrees offered by N.C. State University. According to Jim Causby, superintendent of Johnston County Public Schools, a unique partnership was forged between education and the business community in planning this critical work force training facility. Dr. Don Reichard, president of Johnston Community College, adds, "All of education is important, but The Clayton Center: A Collaboration of-Business Leaders, North Carolina's Community College and University Systems, and Public Schools in terms of economic recovery, it's community colleges that are going to give you the quick turnaround." He continued, "Bayer's CEO said he was not going to hire employees with less than an associate degree. We heard that loud and clear. That's our job." The Clayton center is expected to open in the spring of 2004. Coordinated resources offered by the community college and university system will provide general BioWorks training for new workers and skills upgrade for longtime employ- ees, creating a competitive work force for new biotech jobs in a rural and historically tobacco - dependent community. Thinking ahead, planners designed the facility and curriculum to ensure that training for workers in other industries could also be accommodated. Life science, biotechnology and biomanufac- turing firms have chosen Johnston County for its proximity to the Research Triangle Park and major transportation routes, affordable land and utilities, lower tax rates and skilled workers. Soon they will have another reason to locate and grow in Johnston County —the Clayton Skills Training Center, providing the link between a supply of well - skilled workers and new industry to create future prosperity. Johnston Community College's BioWorks program is currently offered on its Cleveland campus. I s s "We believe the best incentive We have to offer business is a prepared Workforce that needs less training after employment." — Linwood Parker, chairman of the county Economic Development Advisory Board GOLDENLEAF 2002 Annual Report 9 Lea Clayton is developing an organic farm in Saxapahaw, with financing from Self - Help's Sustainable Development Initiative. ., 5 P,S •? E wl 10MIC cr% As North Carolina's traditional industries continue to decline, the Golden LEAF Board of Directors saw a clear economic development impera- tive. Disappearing jobs must be replaced, and the development of new businesses in North Carolina— particularly in rural areas —could do that. '! Further, existing small businesses must have access to capital in y order to grow and prosper, and create more jobs. Banks are the most efficient and logical source of business capital, but banks gen- erally limit their loans to those presenting the very lowest risks putting their services out of reach of many small businesses. Working from this premise, Golden LEAF early on saw the value of partnership with two institutions who leverage their lending to have the most impact in our target areas of tobacco - dependent and economically impacted communities. The Center for Community Self -Help provides loans and technical assistance to small businesses, in both startup and expansion phases. The Rural Economic Development Center's approach is to work with banks around the state, providing a loan loss reserve that encourages banks to make loans to microentrepre- neurs they would otherwise deem too high a risk. CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SELF -HELL' Often referred to as North Carolina's development bank, the Center for Community Self -Help is the country's first statewide, %nt private- sector financial institution focusing on economic devel- opment in depressed communities. Golden LEAF's first grant of $200,000 to the Center allowed Self -Help to leverage more than $10 million for 46 loans in 19 counties. These loans helped create or save some 250 jobs. A new grant in 2002 added $250,000 which Self -Help will use to continue to expand the pro- gram in areas affected most negatively by the decline in tobacco. Self - Help's outreach goes directly to the agricultural community, including tobacco farms. "We work with partner groups in rural communities who have interacted with farm families for years, said Fred Broadwell, director of the Self -Help Credit Union Ventures Fund's Sustainable Development Initiative. "We're just beginning to see some of these projects get off the ground — ventures that collectively can transform the farm economy." Measuring Up 10 In reversal of a decades -long trend, new production and distri- "We're just beginning to see some of these projects bution models are attracting get off the ground— ventures that collectively can transform young, innovative people to the farm economy." farming. According to Broadwell, —Fred Broadwell, director of the Self -Help Credit Union Ventures Funds Sustainable Development Initiative these farmers see themselves as stewards of the land and are happily building up North Carolina's soil and working to keep water resources clean. "We're excited to ben working with farm families exploring entrepreneurial avenues to deal with the decline of the tobacco economy," Broadwell said. s RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER For more than a decade, the Rural Economic Development Center has worked with North Carolina's rural communities, growing businesses, expanding infrastructure, and supporting com- munity -based organizations. The Rural Center's Capital Access Program recognizes that although local banks are the most proficient source of business lending, banks must limit loans to those with the lowest risk,'This can mean some solid business ideas from "microentrepreneurs" fail to secure financing. Phase One of the CAP involved more than 600 loans worth some $31 million. Golden LEAF's 2002 Economic Stimulus package included a $3.4 million grant to support the CAP's second phase. The Rural Center expects to leverage this into $100 million in new loans by creating a special loan loss reserve that enables participating banks to make loans that carry a higher level of risk than allowed by conventional guidelines. Branch Banking bt Trust Company (BB&T) is one of the banks that has worked with the Rural Center on the CAP program since the beginning. BB&T's Small Business Banking manager, Lynn Harton, sees CAP as a tremendously successful program. "It's an especially successful product that has been good for the clients, the community and the bank. We now have $27 million outstanding, with 485 clients, in both phases of the CAP program in North Carolina." In its first three months, the second phase of CAP is look- ing like another success story. Participating banks have made 178 loans totaling $3.7 million, creating 178 jobs, and assist- ing with the retention of another 511 jobs. According to Harton, CAP has been growing at about 30 percent per year. "These are clients that we would not be able to help without this program," he said. "We are very grateful to Golden LEAF for support of this project." GOLDENLEAE 2002 Annual Report 11 Report of Independent Auditors COMPLIANCE "As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Foundation's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial amounts.... The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards." From Ernst & Young LLP's Report on Compliance, Financial Statements and Other Reports, issued to Golden LEAF (August 7, 2002) 12 Ernst & Young conducted an independent audit of Golden LEAF (Long -term Economic Advancement Foundation), Inc. in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States and the standards applicable to financial audits con- tained in the Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The audit reported an opinion from Ernst & Young that the Golden LEAF financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of th'e Foundation as of June 30, 2002, and the results of its operations for the year then' „ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Balance Sheet (As of June 30, 2002) Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets (Year Ended June 30, 2002) Ei1�S, t Proceeds from state settlement $87 917 940 ,. 3, ' Investment income (losses) (13,000,472).' ' Other rjcome 8 615 a t Total revenues : 74,923,626 3" FA EXPENS1r5 Grant distnbutions 10,439,432 3 rs Administrative costs 907,856 r , - Depreciation expense 18,933 - 11,366,221 Excess of revenues over expenses ' 63,557,405 Net assets at beginning of year 167,133,894 Net assets at end of.year $230,691,299 Measuring Up g In 2002, Golden LEAF funded 84 grams totaling $16,261,429.56. HEATT (Heavy Equipment and Transportation Technology) for Beaufort County and Eastern North Carolina Grantee Beaufort County Community College Amount $182,800 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used to support the Heavy Equipment and Transport Technology ( HEATT) program at Beaufort Community College. The program seeks to prepare students with skills necessary to fill 50 new positions that will become available at local businesses over the next two years. objectives for the project are: to strengthen the HEATT /Agricultural Systems program and implement the HEATT /Construction Equipment Systems program as a parallel concentration. Servicing Beaufort, Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties The Carolina Commerce and Technology Center, Inc. (COMtech) Grantee Carolina Commerce and Technology Center, Inc. Amount $155,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to provide a second year of operating support to the Carolina Commerce and Technology Center to assist with planning, outreach, marketing, management support, recruiting and infrastructure development for this technology -based approach to economic development in the region. Servicing Robeson, Hoke, Sampson, Scotland, Cumberland, Bladen and Columbus Counties US Eventing Championships 2003 Grantee Carolina Horse Park Foundation Amount $50,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to provide operating assistance to market and host the US Eventing Championships in the fall of 2003 at the Hoke County facility. Servicing Hoke, Moore, Robeson and Scotland Counties 2002 Awards Golden LEAF is pleased to announce that the following North Carolina non - profits and government entities were awarded grants in the last grant cycle (ending November 2002). • 30 grants were for projects that are agricultural in nature • 19 grants were for economic development initiatives • 35 grants were in the area of education THE APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 -2003 IS AUGUST 1, 2003 S' Gateway Technology Hub facility Grantee Carolinas Gateway Partnership Amount $315,120 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist with the development of a Gateway Technology Hub Facility to meet the needs of local employers and employees for higher educational training in business and technology. Servicing Edgecomebe, Nash, Wilson, Halifax and Northhampton Counties MARTEC: 21st Century Job Opportunities Grantee Carteret Community College Amount $250,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used to purchase equipment for the new Marine Trade Technology Training Center to be constructed on the campus of Carteret Community College over the next two years. Training programs will be available to prepare individuals for job opportunities in all phases of the boating industry. Servicing Southeast, Northeast and Eastern Regions Homegrown Teaching Scholars Grantee Catawba Valley Community College Amount $37,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to provide continued funding for the "Homegrown Teaching Scholars" program. The project will support the following activities: (1) select 12 candidates from Alexander County for public school teacher education (classes will begin at CVCC in 2003); (2) initiate a recruiting campaign through career exploration activities in middle schools; (3) conduct summer enrichment programs; and (4) develop case data to support the long -term sustainability of the program. Servicing Alexander County HMHEC — Providing Higher Education Opportunities for Workers and Employers in Transition Grantee Catawba Valley Community College Amount $175,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist Catawba Valley Community College to work in collaboration with Appalachian State University and Lenoir - Rhyne College to provide expanded learning opportunities for citizens of the greater Hickory metro area to offset the loss of manufacturing jobs in Catawba County. The project will identify higher education training needs for displaced workers, target specific training to meet skills required by existing employers, and develop 15 training programs for a minimum of 450 people that will address the educational needs of workers and employers. Servicing Alexander, Burke, Caldwell and Catawba Counties - Expanding Small Business Lending in Tobacco Dependent Counties Grantee Center for Community Self -Help Amount $200,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will provide a second year of funding to the Center for Community Self -Help to be used in continuing a targeted program of lending to small businesses in rural NC, particularly those counties most affected by the decline in the tobacco industry. Servicing Eastern and Southeast Regions; Warren, Harnett, Granville, Franklin, Yadkin, Surry, Stokes, Rockingtham, Guilford, Caswell, Halifax, Hyde, Martin, Beaufort, Johnston, Person and Vance Counties GOLDENLEAF 2002 Annual Report 13 — - "Our state is already recognized globally as a leader in biotechnology.... But no such leader exists in biomanufacturing yet. I want North Carolina to Initiation of a Fast Ferry Service from Elizabeth City, Washington and Carolina to be the leader in bioman ufactu ring, New Hawk for the First Flight stake that claim. I want North Centennial nial Yealrty and I want those industries to hear me loud and clear today: North Carolina's Grantee Elizabeth city Downtown, Inc. Amount $200,000 open for business." Mike Easley Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used to —Gov. demonstrate the feasibility of a high- speed passenger ferry system serving northeastern North Carolina. The service Corporate Office Park Expansion Institute of Aeronautical Technology will be launched in the spring of 2003, with the initial route between Elizabeth Grantee City of Winston -Salem Equipment Purchase Program City and Kitty Hawk. Services to other Amount $200,000 Grantee Craven Community College t' gateway cities, Washington and New Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF Grant is Amount $350,000 Bern, will be scheduled as demand arises. to assist the City of Winston -Salem with Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is Servicing Pasquotank, Beaufort and Craven the retention of at least 2,825 jobs and to assist Craven Community College Counties creation of 50 new jobs from the with the purchase of equipment, training aids and machinery to train Federal consolidation of Sara Lee Branded Apparel. Funds are to be used for public Aviation Administration licensed aviation project Branch Out /Maylond Regional infrastructure improvements (road maintenance technicians at the Institute Forestry and Horticulture Center widening) outside the gates of the of Aeronautical Technology (IAT). The IAT will prepare skilled workers for job Grantee EnergyXchange corporate properties. openings at the Naval Depot at Cherry Amount $150,000 Servicing Guilford, Forsyth, Stokes, Davidson, Yadkin and Randolph Counties and R Point. Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to native shrubbery production Servicing Craven County expand in northwestern North Carolina from four to seven counties and to carry out Connectinc. Expansion Project Wirthwein AG practical research in the development of Grantee Connect Central, Inc. Grantee Craven County Economic new cash crops. Funds from this grant will be used to provide assistance to Amount $75,000 Development Commission growers in the beginning stages of Project This Golden LEAF grant will provide a Amount $107,100 native shrubbery production, support an second year of funding to Connectinc to expand its employment services to serve Project m purpose of this Golden C Craven Community College grant vt is to h apprenticeship program, hire a greenhouse technician, and to purchase at least six new counties. Funds will be used to assist individuals seeking w provide innovative plastics injection molding equipment for the Avery County employment and financial self- sufficiency the organization's call center. training to workers required by a new AG facility in New Bern. The Woject Greenhouse, Servicing Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, through Servicing Edgecombe, Greene, Jones, Lenoir, Nash, project will have positive economic impacts l in Craven County and surrounding rural Watauga and. Yancey Counties Pitt, Wayne, Wilson, Bertie, Camden, counties, both in direct payroll benefits to Chowan, Hertford, Hyde, Martin, local workers and in terms of indirect Operation Service Ill Northhampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington and Scotland Counties benefits to local service and retail industries. Additionally, the proposed training Grantee Farmville Development Partnership program will serve as 'a model for North Amount $20,000 Carolina industry, and once implemented, Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is Bladen's Bloomin' Agri- Industrial will allow Craven Community College to to provide support to the Farmville Small Leasing Program sponsor similar training programs with Business Incubator and Training Center Grantee County of Bladen other regional industries, so that technical assistance and training Amount $360,000 Servicing Craven, Beaufort, Lenoir, Pitt, Jones, Pamlico and Greene Counties programs are available to aspiring entrepreneurs and the small business Project This Golden LEAF grant will assist Bladen community of Farmville and surrounding County with the expansion of an existing industry through the Agri- i Industrial Leasing Program. The project The Three R's in Improving. Teaching areas. Servicing Greene and Pitt Counties will retain 60 jobs and create over 100 Shortages: Recruitment, Retention new positions at Squires Hardwood. and Resilience oxford Wholesale Produce Auction Funds will be used to construct a Grantee East Carolina University warehouse facility that will be leased to School of Education Grantee Granville County Cooperative Squires Hardwood for the purpose of Amount $250,000 Extension storing inventory necessary to obtain j contracts with major retail outlets. Project This Golden LEAF grant will provide a Amount $52,853 Servicing Sampson, Robeson and Bladen Counties second year of funding to implement and evaluate a model teacher recruiting Project This Golden LEAF grant will provide farmers of the region who wish to and retention program in eight rural diversify into alternative crop production eastern NC counties, The project access to a wholesale market outlet for will serve 370 first year teachers, such crops as produce, nursery stock, 370 mentors, 100 principals, eight bedding plants, Christmas trees and hay. superintendents, and will impact more Funds are to be used to purchase a than 5,000 students. forklift and refrigeration units so the =! Servicing Edgecombe, Greene, Jones, Perquimans, auction can be expanded and thus ;. Washington and Robeson Counties handle a larger volume of produce. d Servicing Granville County Measuring Up 14 9 It West Farm Site Millard Grantee Greater Statesville Area Committee of 100 Amount- $150,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used for infrastructure needed for Millard Refrigerated Services' acquisition and expansion of the existing Polar Cold Storage Facility. Millard will offer cold storage, blast- freezing and distribution for the poultry industry. The program will create a minimum of 30 new jobs, help meet current and increased demands of business and industry, provide water backup for industrial needs, support job creation and retention initiatives in agri - business, work with the community college system in training to meet job market demands, and develop a workforce partnership to assure job readiness in rural Iredell and surrounding communities. Servicing Iredell, Yadkin, Cabarrus, Guilford, Surry, Stokes, Rockingham and Alexander Counties Thomas Built Buses Training Initiative Grantee Guilford Technical Community College Amount $500,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist Guilford Technical Community College with retraining incumbent workers at Thomas Built Buses. The project will create 178 new jobs and retain 1,000 production jobs. Servicing Alamance, Guilford, Randolph, Davidson, Forsyth, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin, Montgomery and Davie Counties Harnett County Industrial Park Certification— Edgerton i Grantee Harnett County Economic Development Commission Amount $1,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will enable the Harnett County Economic Development Commission to obtain site certification for the Edgerton I industrial Park, a 47 -acre tract of land located outside the city limits of Dunn, NC. Certification of the site will verify for prospective clients that an in- depth analysis of the property has been completed. Site certification will increase the statewide inventory of certified sites and offer Harnett County a competitive edge in industrial recruitment. Upon certification, the Harnett County Economic Development Commission will begin marketing the Edgerton I Industrial Park as a "shovel- ready" site. Servicing Harnett County A Multi- Faceted Approach to Agricultural and Economic Revitalization Grantee Haywood County Agriculture and Activities Center Association, Inc. Amount $200,000 Project Funds from this Golden LEAF grant are to be used to complete an all- weather, multi - purpose facility as a year -round market outlet for agricultural products and a regional center for agricultural events. Servicing Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackison, Macon and Swain Counties Opportunities for Work Grantee Industrial Opportunities, Inc. Amount $60;000 Project The purpose of this grant is to purchase equipment to fulfill contracts worth $1.5 *million to manufacture A -22 cargo bags and extraction lines for U.S. military airdrops. The plan is to employ 30 disadvantaged workers. Focusing on dislocated older workers, this project will increase job training and variety of work offered to adults with disabilities. The project will be sustained from the sale of goods. The long -term impact is to offer additional employment opportunities to a three -county area that has lost jobs due to loss of textile plants, a furniture plant and the loss of productive farms. The equipment will be used after the life of this contract to attract other contracts that require this specialty equipment. Servicing Cherokee, Clay, Graham and Macon Counties Goat Milk Cheese Processing Facility Cooperative Grantee Johnston County Goat Producers Association Amount $15,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant is to support the development of a feasibility study for a farmer owned, goat milk cheese - processing facility in Johnston County. Servicing Johnston, Harnett, Wake and Wilson Counties Clayton Biotechnology and Workforce Training Center Grantee Johnston County Industrial Development Corporation Amount $241,500 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist Johnston County Industrial Development Corporation with predevelopment costs associated with the creation of the Clayton Biotechnology and Workforce Training Center. Servicing Johnston County Mor/obs— Morganite and /CI Partnering to Create More fobs! Grantee Johnston County Industries, Inc. Amount $150,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist Johnston County Industries with purchasing equipment and training individuals to manufacture 20,000 commutators per day under contract with Morganite. The project will create 60 new jobs and generate $16 million in new revenues for Johnston and Harnett counties. Servicing Johnston and Harnett Counties GOLDENLEAF 2002 Annual Report 15 Mainstream fob Training Grantee La Grange Redevelopment Foundation Amount $75,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will provide job training to individuals on welfare or unskilled workers to prepare them for jobs in commercial construction (framing, plumbing, electrical and finished carpentry). Students will receive on- the -job training through Lenoir Community College in restoring commercial property owned by the college foundation. The training program will prepare participants for 77 job openings that will be available over the next year at 10 contracting businesses. Servicing Lenoir County Cut Flower production and Marketing in Eastern North Carolina Grantee Lenoir County Amount $110,000 This Golden LEAF grant will provide support to farmers that are interested in trapsitioning greenhouses, formerly used in tobacco production, into cut flower production. Grant funds are to be used for demonstration and training, to identify and develop market outlets, and support the formation of a grower's cooperative. Servicing Greene, Jones and Lenoir Counties Project phase 11 of "Martin County Economic impact improvement through an 1ST Start -Up" Grantee Martin Community College Amount $125,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will provide a funding to complete second year of Phase II of the Industrial Systems (Maintenance) Technology program at Martin Community College. The program will support local industry, provide job training for recent high school graduates, and retrain displaced factory and farm workers. Madison Farms Value -Added Grantee Madison County Servicing Martin, Washington and Bertie Counties Industrial Maintenance Technology Degree Program Grantee Montgomery Community College Amount $250,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will assist Montgomery Community College in starting an Industrial Maintenance Technology program to meet local industry needs for skilled industrial maintenance technicians. Servicing Montgomery Amount $75,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to increase market opportunities for farmers who are diversifying their operations through alternative crop production and value -added enterprises, and provide training in business planning, marketing and management. Servicing Madison County County Development and Outreach Education of Agribusiness principles in Eastern North Carolina Grantee Mount Olive College Amount $70,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will assist Montgomery Community College in starting an Industrial Maintenance Technology program to meet local Industry needs for skilled industrial maintenance technicians. Servicing Wayne, Duplin, Greene, Craven, Jones, Onslow, Pitt, Lenoir and Sampson Counties 95 Electric Lineman Technology Diploma program Grantee Nash Community College Amount $76,612.56 Project This Golden LEAF grant will assist Nash Community College, in collaboration with three major employers of linemen, to start an Electric Lineman Technology diploma program. The program will prepare students for jobs in the field of line installers and cable splicers where overall employment is expected to grow at nine percent per year through 2006. Servicing Statewide Realizing Upscale Pork Markets for Small Scale Producers Grantee North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Amount $225,000 The purpose of this grant is to provide a second year of funding to continue the development of sustainable hog farming in North Carolina. Funds are to be used to recruit and train additional farmers in "upscale" hog production using Niman Ranch techniques, examine and demonstrate alternative hog rearing systems and methods of marketing "upscale" pork, test progeny in "upscale" boar semen, and establish a demonstration site at the Cherry Farm in Wayne County. Project Servicing Statewide Edible CarMedicinal a: rA Cash Crop for the Future North re Grantee North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Amount $355,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to provide a second year of funding to support the expansion of mushroom farming in North Carolina. Funds are to be used to expand the network of farmers engaged in commercial -scale mushroom production, establish mass production in a controlled environment, and develop the industrial processing of mushrooms tc obtain beta- glucans for pharmaceutical use, and create over - the - counter retail and functional food applications. Servicing Statewide Measuring 1 96 Development of Market for Naked Oat Variety "NC Huff- less" Grantee North Carolina Agricultural Foundation, Inc. Amount $21,250 Project Funds from this Golden LEAF grant are to be used to research and demonstrate the performance of livestock when fed the oat variety NC Hull -less, in comparison to regular oats, and if findings are positive, to develop and implement a marketing plan for NC Hull -less. Servicing Statewide Development and Production of Value -Added Egg Products Grantee North Carolina Agricultural Foundation, Inc. Amount $87,500 Project This Golden LEAF grant will provide a second year of funding to assist with the creation of the Carolina Egg Development Corporation, a liquid egg and pre - cooked egg product processing facility. Servicing Nash, Edgecombe, Halifax, Warren, Franklin, Wilson, Beaufort, Robeson, Tyrrell, Duplin, Hyde, Washington and Columbus Counties Marketing and Marketing Capacity Development for Carolina Organic Growers, Inc. Grantee North Carolina Agricultural Foundation, Inc. Amount $95,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to support Carolina Organic Growers in creating and implementing a marketing program to expand wholesale and restaurant accounts in the Triangle, Charlotte, Wilmington, Asheville, Boone and Triad areas and thus increase sales for COG members by 15 percent over a two year period. Servicing Statewide Entrepreneur Assistance Program for Value -Added Agricultural Commodities and Products Grantee North Carolina Agricultural Foundation, Inc. Amount $125,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to develop and extend entrepreneurial training modules that address issues in developing and marketing food products, horticultural commodities and other agricultural goods. Servicing Statewide "The Golden LEAF is a key component of my efforts to brings jobs and economic opportunity to all corners of North Carolina." —Rep. Jim Black, Co- Speaker, N.C. House of Representatives 4' Sustainable'Agricultural Solutions Manufactured from Waste Materials Grantee North Carolina Agricultural Foundation, Inc. Amount $200,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to support a second year of funding for further research and product development by Novovita, Inc., of a paper -like material, manufactured from poultry wastes, to be used as crop cover, bedding and fertilizer. Servicing Statewide Alternative Markets for North Carolina Grain Growers Grantee North Carolina Agricultural Foundation, Inc. Amount $300,000 Project The purpose of this grant is to provide a third year of funding to the Grain Growers Cooperative in support of the following activities: soy biodiesel project, market development for natb?say beans, Small Grain Producers — research on red winter wheat, and a feasibility study for the Tidewater Soy Processors. Servicing Statewide Agri - Cultural Tourism: A Proposal for Economic Development Grantee North Carolina Arts Council Amount $325,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist the North Carolina Arts Council, HandMade In America and Duplin County Cooperative Extension in developing and implementing a model agri - cultural and.heritage tourism model that can be replicated statewide. The project will be multi - pronged and use proven community development models to create new sustainable tourism products. Servicing Statewide Biomanufacturing Workforce Development Needs and Resources Assessment Grantee North Carolina Biotechnology Center Amount $250,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center to develop, perform and analyze a bioprocess manufacturing workforce training needs assessment; conduct an inventory of current educational resources available to meet these needs; and coordinate a strategic plan for a comprehensive statewide program of biomanufacturing workforce training. The project will result in the generation of a report combining the results of the workforce training needs assessment and the inventory of current educational resources; a strategic plan based on the data obtained in the needs assessment and inventory, and an executive summary brochure that presents the major findings from the surveys, previews the strategic plan, and emphasizes the significances of this statewide initiative to economic development in North Carolina. Servicing Statewide A Demonstration Model for Workplace Preparedness in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry: A Continuation Grantee North Carolina Central University Amount $200,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will assist NC Central with a second year of funding to partner with Alamance, Vance - Granville and Wake Technical Community Colleges to deliver hospitality training to 60 participants in one of three career tracks: food service management, lodging operations, and tourism and hospitality management. The target population will be displaced tobacco workers from jP Taylor and others. Servicing Durham, Franklin, Granville, Orange, Person, Wake, Vance, Warren and Alamance Counties Golden LEAF Scholars Program Grantee North Carolina Community College System Amount $300,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will make available scholarships to provide job training to students attending North Carolina community colleges serving tobacco- dependent communities. Servicing Statewide GOLDENLEAF 2002 Annual Report 17 "When .it'comes to the manufacturing of biotech products; thk field "is wide open ..J. his is our dream, and thjs is bur.. opportunityfor,it to happen It's all about lobs,, "It's all about employment." —Sen. Marc Basnight, President Pro Tern, N.C. Senate Golden LEAF Foundation Scholarships Grantee North Carolina Independent colleges and Universities Amount $90,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used to establish the Golden LEAF Scholars Program for North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities. Funds will be used to provide one -year scholarships at $2,500 each for member schools (36 total scholarships --one scholarship for each school) covering tuition and fees. Eligible recipients will be students who reside in the top tobacco dependent or Tier I counties in the state. Scholarships will be need and merit based. t. Servicing Statewide Creating a Statewide Community Development Credit Union Grantee North Carolina Minority Support Center Amount $100,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist the North Carolina Minority Support Center with equity capital for personal and commercial lending through a new community based financial institution, Generations Community Credit Union, that will serve families statewide. Servicing Statewide Sowing the Seeds and Cultivating the Soil of Entrepreneurship Grantee North Carolina REAL Enterprises, Inc. Amount $53,806 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist North Carolina REAL Enterprises with expanding its entrepreneurial training program in seven tobacco dependent counties to support farmers and displaced workers who are in transition and interested in business ownership and expansion. Servicing Martin, Madison, Columbus, Granville, Vance, Warren and Bladen Counties 18 Capital Access 11 Grantee North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. Amount $3,400,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used for the second phase.of the Rural Economic Development Center's Capital Asset Program. Phase One of the CAP involved more than 600 loans worth some $31 million. Working with banks throughout the state, CAP provides a loan -loss reserve to allow banks to make loans to small businesses in rural and economically distressed areas that might otherwise not qualify for credit at a reasonable rate. The Rural Center expects this grant to leverage nearly $100 million in loans. Servicing Statewide Civic Ventures Fund Demonstration —Phase ll Grantee North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. Amount $125,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to support the Civic Ventures Fund in building the capacity of rural counties to work collaboratively to plan, develop, implement and evaluate sustainable development projects that address issues of local importance and produce clear returns on Investment. Servicing AdvantageWest Improving Marketing Opportunities for North Carolina Sweet Potatoes and In -Shell Peanuts Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $64,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to expand market opportunities for in- shell peanuts and sweet potatoes through directed research that addresses factors that limit current market opportunities. The work will identify strategies that enhance cultivar selection, consumer appeal and purchase intent. Servicing Eastern and Southeast Regions Rapid Development of a Replacement Cultivar for Sprite Melon Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $65,488 Project The primary goal of this Golden LEAF grant is to develop new specialty melons for NC growers. Objectives include the development of inbred lines with performance at least as good as "Sprite" and testing of hybrids made by crossing complementary pairs of inbreds with the ultimate goal of releasing a replacement cultivar for the "Sprite" melon with ownership and control in NC. Servicing Eastern and Southeast Regions, Northeast Partnership, Piedmont Triad and RTR Partnership 9 1 Use of Tobacco Transplant Houses and Other Types of Greenhouse Structures to Produce Alternative Crops Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $70,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to identify alternative crops for both tobacco transplant and standard greenhouses. Funds are to be used to support the following activities: (1) identify and test potential contract crops for wetland restoration and water garden plants in float bed houses; (2) experiment with summer and organic hydroponic production systems for lettuce and basil; (3) set up demonstrations comparing various types of greenhouses, production systems and alternative crops; and (4) disseminate findings of the research. Servicing Yancey, Graham, Wilson, Forsyth, Stanley, Columbus, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Person, Wake, Moore, Lee, Harnett, Randolph, Palk, Union, Ashe and Burke Counties Development of Value -Added Products and Market Opportunities for North Carolina Fruits and Their By- Products Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $71,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to add value -added products, technologies and markets for fruit producers of the state. The project will improve technologies for blending raw materials from muscadine grapes, blueberries, apples, strawberries and peaches into juices, wines and non- alcoholic beverages. Servicing Statewide Developing New Nursery Crops for North Carolina Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $77,038 Project The purpose of this project is to continue expedited breeding efforts and controlled hybridizations for diverse nursery crops, including redbuds, dogwoods, birches, rhododendron, stewartias, styrax, sweetshrubs, stokes asters, summersweet, barberry and butterfly bushes. Servicing Statewide Measuring Up S %3 Establishment of Foundation Broodstock for Flounder Farming in North Carolina Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $150,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to apply breeding and culture techniques developed over eight years to establish a demonstration facility for improving broodstock quality and commercial production of flounder. Servicing Eastern Region, Northeast Partnership, Piedmont Triad and RTR Partnership Marketing, Production and Educational Program Development for the Expansion of the Franklin County Goat Producers Cooperative Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $200,000 Project The purpose of this project is to expand meat goat markets and to continue research on improving the quality of meat goats and production techniques. Servicing Statewide Distance Diagnosis of Pest and Plant Disease Problems Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $209,050 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to equip 14 county extension centers with professional quality compound and dissecting microscopes, supplies, a computer and imaging equipment where specimens can be brought for proper imaging and digital submission to NC State University faculty. The purpose of the centers will be to provide immediate access to university experts for plant problems and disease diagnosis and make available locally trained professionals who are able to use lab tools to analyze and diagnose plant and pest problems. Servicing Harnett, Robeson, Cabarrus, Person, Clay, Henderson, Madison, Edgecombe, Wayne, Pitt, Duplin, Beaufort, Chowan and Forsyth Counties The NC Specialty Crops Program- - Keeping North Carolina Agriculture Profitable Through Innovative New Crop Research and Marketing —Year 2 Grantee North Carolina State University Amount $280,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is provide a second year of funding to continue statewide expansion of the Specialty Crops Program, broaden the scope of crops, products and enterprises studied and developed, and increase educational outreach efforts. Servicing Statewide Revitalizing Farms and Communities through Nigh Value Organic Production: Demonstration, Education and Marketing Grantee North Carolina State University Center for Environmental Farm Amount $70,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to support the second year of work aimed at assisting NC farmers with the transition to high value organic production through education, demonstration and marketing activities. Direct support will be given to farmers whp'seek to initiate a community supported agriculture marketing program. In addition, the project will begin developing an institutional food - buying program targeting universities, hospitals and nursing homes, Servicing Statewide Sweet Potato Business Enhancement Program —A Long Term Initiative to Expand the Sales and Consumption of North Carolina Sweet Potatoes Grantee North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission Foundation, Inc. Amount $300,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to devise and implement a comprehensive strategy to measurably and sustainably increase the demand for and consumption of NC sweet potatoes. Servicing Statewide TGANC Communication and Education Improvement Initiative Grantee North Carolina Tobacco Foundation Amount $34,500 Project Funds from this Golden LEAF.grant will be used to assist TGANC with developing, improving, increasing and strengthening communication and educational services to over 10,000 tobacco farm families statewide. Servicing Statewide Agri -Bio Training in Scotland County (Project Pisces) Grantee North Carolina's Southeast Commission Amount $46,666 Project This Golden LEAF grant will support the location of an agri- biotech company in Scotland County as a poultry- vaccine production facility. Training provided by the NC Community College System under this project will cultivate workforce skills that will help attract additional agri -bio ventures to Scotland County. Funds will train workers in specialized areas including product development, safety, quality management and process engineering. Servicing Scotland, Robeson, Hoke, Sampson, Cumberland, Bladen and Columbus Counties Risk Management Training and Market Development for Limited Resource Farmers Grantee Operation Spring Plant, Inc. Amount $150,000 Project Funds from this Golden LEAF grant will be used to assist Operation Spring Plant in operating the Risk Management and Market Development project as part of its Rural Business Development Cooperative Program. The program will provide training to limited resource farmers in sustainable agricultural production techniques, farm planning and market development. Servicing Martin, Hyde, Washington, Pitt, Duplin, Edgecombe, Warren, Vance, Person, Granville, Franklin, Sampson, Beaufort and Halifax Counties Wilson County Outreach and Workforce Preparedness Program Grantee Opportunities Industrialization Center of Wilson, Inc. Amount $130,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will assist OIC to recruit and train displaced tobacco workers for jobs at Cox Target Media. The program will prepare participants for 150 job openings over the next two years at Cox Media in the following areas: printing press operators, material handlers, machine operators, mail sorters, lift truck operators and clerical personnel. Servicing Wilson County Pamlico County SEEED Project (Sustainable Employment through Environmental and Economic Development) Grantee Pamlico Community College Amount $48,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to support Pamlico Community College in training local businesses to market, manufacture, install and maintain affordable, environmentally friendly and permittabie wastewater treatment systems in eastern NC. The project will utilize proven technology (ReCip), created by TVA, which treats wastewater sufficiently to allow permitting where a septic system cannot be used. Servicing Pamlico County GOLDENLfEAF 2002 Annual Report 19 Pitt Community College Associate Degree Program in Biotechnology Grantee Pitt Community College Amount $161,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will enable Pitt Community College to implement an Associate Degree Program in Biotechnology to serve as a training program for DSM Pharmaceutical. DSM Pharmaceuticals, located in Greenville, is planning an expansion in 2003 that will require 50+ lab technicians with a biotechnology background and an associate degree. This program also will serve the needs of other area biotech - related companies. Students completing the Biotechnology Associate Degree program at Pitt Community College will have the opportunity to obtain the BS degree in Biotechnology at East Carolina University or any other UNC institution with two years of additional study. Servicing Pitt County and Eastern Region Creating a Healthy Future Workforce for Rural Communities Grantee Pitt County Memorial Hospital /University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina Amount $277,646 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist The University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina, a division of Pitt Memorial, with a second year of funding to provide school nurses for ]ones and Pamlico counties. The project will employ and train school nurses who will implement school health programs in both counties as well as collect and analyze data to be used to inform the public and influence policy related to school health. Servicing ]ones and Pamlico Counties Sandhilis Farm Marketing and Agritourism Development Project Grantee Richmond County Center of North Carolina Cooperative Extension Amount $24,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist Richmond County Cooperative Extension with support and training for Sandhills farmers seeking alternative farm markets and region -wide promotion of agri- tourism. Training will be provided to farmers on topics such as hospitality, pricing, business management and cooperatives. Participants completing the program will be eligible to apply for low - interest loans through the USDA Rural Development program. Servicing Richmond, Montgomery, Anson and Moore Counties TEACHBuild Grantee River City Community Development Corporation Amount $40,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist River City Community Development Corporation in offering training in financial literacy, information systems, business development and entrepreneurship to 10 to 15 at -risk youth. In addition, the CDC will implement an apprenticeship- training program that includes GED preparation, leadership training and skill development in the areas of construction or information systems technology. Servicing Perquimans, Camden, Chowan, Currituck and Gates Counties Edgecombe County Mixed Use/ I nclastrial Incubator Grantee Rocky Mount /Edgecombe Community Development Corporation Amount $150,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to provide support for a mixed use incubator to house industrial, manufacturing, service, and technology businesses. The facility will target low -to- moderate income citizens and provide space, resources, and services to businesses and light manufacturing enterprises to assist with start-up and operations. Servicing Nash and Edgecombe Counties Viticulture /Enology A Growing Program Grantee Surry Community College Amount $150,000 Project Funds from this Golden LEAF grant will be used by Surry Community College for continued development and advancement of the wine grape industry in the Yadkin Valley region. Training programs will be offered through continuing education and curriculum classes and specialized technical assistance made available to area farmers who are transitioning into wine grape production. Servicing Surry, Stokes, Yadkin, Wilkes, Watauga, Davie, Guilford, Alamance and Forsyth Counties 95 Emergency Funding for Grape Harvest Grantee Surry Community College Amount $70,000 Project This Golden LEAF Grant is to be used by Surry Community College to purchase materials and grapes necessary to process wine from this year's harvest of the Old North State Winegrowers Cooperative members. Servicing Surry, Stokes, Yadkin, Wilkes, Watauga, Davie, Guilford, Alamance and Forsyth Counties The Old North State Winery Grantee The Old North State Winegrowers Foundation, Inc. Amount $280,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will enable Old North State Winegrowers Foundation to convert a 3- story, 22,000 sq. ft. building in Mount Airy into an educational and fully operational winery. The enterprise will provide training in winemaking and offer instruction in marketing, retailing and accounting to prepare students with vital technical and business skills. The grant will fund the purchase of receiving and' cellar equipment and a refrigeration system; installation of a bottling line and fermentation storage racks, chillers, tanks and oak barrels; and the construction of a tasting room and office upfit. Servicing Surry, Stokes, Yadkin, Wilkes, Watauga, Davie, Guilford, Alamance, Forsyth and Nash Counties Southeastern Robeson County: Planting Seeds for the Future Grantee Town of Fairmont Amount $100,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will support the Town of Fairmont, in collaboration with Robeson Community College, in providing adult education courses and computer training to residents of southeast Robeson County. The project will expand the existing GED program to include Adult Basic Education, Adult High School, GED and computer classes offered at the new Fairmont Community Building. Training will prepare individuals for entry-level positions and additional advanced training opportunities in the healthcare and computer industries. Servicing Robeson County 20 Measuring Up 16 1 '61 Town of Maysville Water and Sewer Project Grantee Town of Maysville Amount $200,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist the Town of Maysville with repairs to the town's wastewater collection and treatment system that are required to lift a moratorium so a 10,000 square -foot retail shopping /office plaza can be developed along Highway 17. Servicing Jones County The Town of Salemburg— Economic Opportunities for the Rural Community Grantee Town of Salemburg Amount $175,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist Salemburg with purchasing equipment needed to open a grocery store for the area, which will be leased and operated by a private entrepreneur. The project will create 20 new jobs and result in a new market opportunity for area farmers. The store is a key piece of the town's redevelopment plan that will result in additional jobs creation. Servicing Sampson County Developing Our Own Resources: The D.O.O.R. Initiative Grantee Town of Scotland Neck Amount $50,000 Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to support Scotland Neck in implementing an initiative to assist farmers with transitioning into alternative agricultural enterprises that utilize the environmental, natural, and recreational resources of the area. In addition, the project will provide training for farmers interested in starting ecotourism -based businesses. Servicing Halifax, Northhampton, Bertie and Martin Counties Seagrove Economic Development Project Grantee Town of Seagrove Amount $89,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will assist the Town of Seagrove with predevelopment costs to expand the town's sewer system to accommodate the relocation of Yankee Commodity Foods (94 new jobs) and expansion at Wade Technical Molding (50 new jobs and 24 retained). Servicing Randolph County Golden LEAF Scholars Program Grantee University of North Carolina Amount $347,500 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used to provide a second year of funding for the Golden LEAF Scholars Program offered through the University of North Carolina System Office. Funds will be used to assist up to 137 students with scholarships covering UNC tuition and fees (averaging $2,500) for one year. Eligible recipients will be students who res�de in the tobacco dependent or Tier I counties in the state. Scholarships will be need and merit based. All public universities will be eligible to participate in the scholarship program. Servicing StAewide Bioeconomk and Environmental Suitability 61` Two Asian Oyster Varieties for Aquaculture in North Carolina Grantee University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Amount $50,000 Project Funds from this Golden LEAF grant will be used to collaborate with shell fisherman throughout eastern NC to conduct feasibility trials with three non- native oysters to evaluate their biological and economical feasibility for widespread commercial cultivation. Servicing Jones, Beaufort, Camden, Chowan, Hyde, Martin, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Onslow, Pamlico, Dare, Pender and Craven Counties Sustainable Solutions to Economic Distress, Tobacco Dependence, Limited Health Care Access and the Nursing Shortage: Nursing Education for Golden LEAF Counties Grantee University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Amount $200,000 Project This Golden LEAF grant will be used to assist the School of Nursing to increase the number of Nurse Practitioners in tobacco dependent counties by providing Registered Nurses residing in these counties with opportunities to earn graduate nursing degrees from UNC- Chapel Hill. The program will prepare RNs for leadership positions as Nurse Practitioners while they continue to live and work in their home communities. The long -term goal is to build the healthcare infrastructure in rural, tobacco dependent and economically distressed counties of the state. Servicing Alamance, Durham, Edgecombe, Granville, Halifax, Nash, Vance and Wilson Counties Appalachian Food Ventures —A Shared -Use Value Added Food Processing Center Grantee Western North Carolina Regional Economic Development Commission Amount $350,000 Project Funds from this Golden LEAF grant will be used to assist with the creation of Appalachian Food Ventures, a non - profit, shared use, value -added food processing center at the Enka Campus of Asheville - Buncombe Technical Community College. The project will serve farm -based value added producers and food entrepreneurs through access to low -cost processing facilities, training and specialized services needed by small businesses to manufacture, process or add value to food and agricultural products. Servicing Buncombe, Haywood, Henderson and Madison Counties Growing a Natural Products Industry in North Carolina— Graham County Economic Diversification Program, Phase 3 Grantee Yellow Creek Botanical Institute, Inc. Amount $100,000' Project The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist T4'Yellow Creek Botanical Institute and its partners in developing a vertically integrated botanical products industry in western NC. Funds will be used to help develop a streamlined supply of bloodroot for the European market, and continue providing alternative agribusiness opportunities to the historically tobacco dependent region in and around Graham County. Program implementation will result in related industry development across the western region of the state. Servicing AdvantageWest three to five years: +'`A decline in cjgarette pro to 17 percent GOLDENLEAF 2002 Annual Report 21 Board Chairman S. Lawrence Davenport Pactolus Employer: J.P. Davenport and Son, Inc. Term expires: 2005 Appointed by Speaker of the House q R Michael A. Almond Charlotte Employer: Charlotte Regional Partnership berm expires: 2004 Appointed by Speaker of the House Erskine Bowles Charlotte Erskine Bowles & Co., LLC Term expires: 2004 Appointed by Governor Jessie Thomas Bunn Raleigh Employer: Leaf Tobacco Exporters Association Term expires: 2005 Appointed by Speaker of the House Julius L. Chambers Charlotte Ferguson Stein Chambers Term expires: 2006 Appointed by Speaker of the House William Clarke Asheville Employer: Roberts & Stevens Term expires: 2005 Appointed by President Pro Tem of the Senate Lisbeth C. Evans Winston -Salem N.C. Secretary of Cultural Resources Term expires: 2005 Appointed by Governor John H. Harmon New Bern Attorney Term expires: 2005 Appointed by President Pro Tem of the Senate Richard Holder Kinston Employer: Harvey Fertilizer & Gas Co. Term expires: 2006 Appointed by Governor William D. Johnson Raleigh Employer: Progress Energy Service Term expires: 2004 Appointed by Speaker of the House H. Kel Landis, 111 Rocky Mount Employer: RBC Centura Banks, Inc. Term expires: 2004 Appointed by Governor John D. Merritt Wilmington Senior Assistant to the Governor for Policy and Communications Term expires: 2004 Appointed by President Pro Tem of the Senate David T. Stephenson, III Lumberton Farmer, Stephenson Farm Supply Term expires: 2004 Appointed by President Pro Tem of the Senate William Ward, Jr. Ahoskie Farmer Term expires: 2005 Appointed by Governor Debbie E. Worley Princeton Farmer Term expires: 2006 Appointed by President Pro Tem of the Senate 22 Measuring Up 1i3 Staff Valeria L. Lee Joseph H. Gray, Jr. Courtney Mills President Vice President of Finance Administrative Associate and Operations Rhea Barnes Mark Sorrells Administrative Assistant Vice President of Programs Alexis Vaughn Investment Officer GOLDENLEAF 2002 Annual Report 23 Golden LEAF The Golden LEAF Foundation was created in 1999 as a non - profit corporation as a 800 Tiffany Boulevard result of the consent decree resolving litigation initiated by the North Carolina Suite 200 Department of Justice against cigarette manufacturers. It receives -one half of the Rocky Mount, NC 27804 funds coming to North Carolina resulting from the Master Settlement Agreement www.goidenleaf.org and makes grants to non - profit and government agencies. CREDITS: Creative direction, copywriting, graphic design and production: Kaye Lasater & Associates, Raleigh, NC 24 Measuring Up I NC Farmland In Transition nd Link" Concept IM Our Aging Farm Population ■ 35% of NC farmland operated by farmers over age 55 ■ 36% of farmers who list farming as their principal occupation are aged 65 or older ■ Less than 5% of farmland operated by farmers under age 35 Farmland Transition Obstacles Facing Retiring Farmers • Lack of Estate Planning • Lack of an heir who is interested in farming • Too many heirs • Value of farmland for development am 1 106 Obstacles to Beginning Farmers • Lack of Experience • Inaccessibility of capital resources • Lack of adequate financing options • Unavailability of land Current Farmland Preservation Programs Voluntary Ag Districts PDR, Conservation Easements Do not address the issue of farmland in transition The "Land Link" Concept • Basic concept - Link retiring farmers with young and beginning farmers to facilitate transition of farmland to next generation • About 20 states are currently served by a Land Link Program • Most programs are members of the National Farmland Transition Network 2 Land Link Tools • Real estate listing service for retiring farmers • Educational seminars of interest to retiring or beginning farmers • Professional referral service • Mentoring program • Apprenticeship program • Conservation Easements NC Land Link Steering Committee • American Farmland Trust • Conservation Trust for North Carolina • Land Loss Prevention Project • NC Cooperative Extension Service • NCDA &CS • NC Farm Bureau Federation • NC Rural Center • RAFI -USA Next Steps • Funding • Staff • Housing ■ For further information call — Steve Woodson NCFB —(919) 782 -1705 117 3 '108 Beginning Farmer Center Resources to help our next generation of farmers "Agriculture and farmers face big challenges. We can accept things as they are and say they can't be changed, or we can help shape Iowa's agricultural future." AG -LINK Seminar A four day program for any family considering a multiple generation farm business. About BFC fan -Line National BFC A Prouam 161 Publications A Programs Page 1 of 1 Do you want to retire from or start into farming? Check out our Farm On program. Contact the BFC Administrator: irbaker@iastate. edu Send comments about the web site to: ivohsman@iastate. edu Site updated on: 01108103 Fowa State University Extension Helping You Bevame Your Best 109 http:/ /www.extension.iastate.edu/bfc/ 1/10/03 About the BFC Page 1 of 2 k �9 g Farmer Center History Staff Objectives Future Plans A History The Iowa Legislature created the Beginning Farmer Center in 1994. The Center is a part of Iowa State University Extension. The idea for a Beginning Farmer Center developed from a series of discussions with Legislators, Extension personnel, and others concerning what could be done to encourage new farmers. These discussions led to the conclusion that it was necessary to have a center to focus exclusively on the needs and issues facing beginning farmers. It was also determined that this Center should facilitate the matching of beginning farmers with existing farmers who wanted to transition their farm businesses to the next generation. The law creating the Center is set out in Chapter 266 of the Code of Iowa and provides, in part, that the Center "shall... assist in facilitating the transition of farming operations from established farmers to beginning farmers ". The law also provides that the Center is to develop "models to increase the number of family farming operations in this state ". To meet these mandates the Center has funded a variety of programs, publications and research efforts. A Staff Michael D. Duffy, Professor in Charge ISU Department of Economics 560C Heady Ames, Iowa 50011 -1070 Office: 515 -294 -6160 E -Mail: mduffy @iastate.edu http://www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/du John R. Baker, Attorney at Law Beginning Farmer Center Administrator 10861 Douglas Ave Suite B Urbandale, Iowa 50322 Office: 515- 331 -8900 E -Mail: jrbaker@iastate.edu A The Center's Objectives Coordinate education programs and services for beginning farmer efforts statewide. Assess needs of beginning farmers and retiring farmers. Develop, coordinate, and deliver targeted education to beginning and retiring farm families. http : / /www. extension .iastate.eduibfc /about.html 1 /14 /03 About the BFC Page, of L Provide programs and services that develop skills and knowledge in financial management and planning, legal issues, tax laws, technical production and management, leadership, sustainable agriculture, human health, the environment, and leadership. A Future Plans for the Center • Continue funding and support for the Farm On program that links beginning farmers with farmers desiring to transition their farms to the next generation. • Continue funding and support for the Ag Link seminar for college juniors and seniors that will be returning to the family farm. • Continue to support the individual farm financial analysis for beginning farmers through the Extension Farm Financial Planning Program. • Develop a computer based version of the Farm Savvy transition manual. Conduct research to determine the factors that motivate farm business owners to transition their farm business to the next generation. Provide educational materials to beginning and exiting farmers through a variety of methods including the internet, seminars, and publications. 4 Home o About the BFC p BFC Programs p On-Line Publications p National Programs 0, Contact the BFC Administrator: -irbaker(u iastate. edu Send comments about the web site to: ivohsman@iastate. edu Page updated on: 06124102 http: / /www. extension .iastate.edu /bfc /about.html 1/14/03 liz w eicome To w asmngion r armL=! rage 1 ci Z. 113 King County 08Re ,I "M = W4-"- AM What is FarmLink? FarmLink is sponsored by King and Snohomish Counties WASH 11I4sam FARMLI ' FarmLink is a means to help ensure that working farms remain in agricultural production and to help facilitate the transition of farms to the next generation. FarmLink provides an opportunity to pass on the hard work of generations of farmers to a new generation. FarmLink connects people wanting to get started in agriculture with farmers and landowners who are committed to*establishing the next generation of producers. FarmLink connects people with the resources and technical expertise necessary to achieve these goals. FarmLink is a joint project of the King County Agricultural Commission and the Snohomish County Agricultural Advisory Board. FarmLink is For: • Farmers who want their operation to continue after they retire. • Farmers facing operational and /or transitional challenges. • Current or former farm managers who want to eventually own their own farm. • Agriculture service providers seeking new career opportunities. • Landowners with underutilized or unused farmland. • Farmers looking for a partner to operate a new enterprise on their farms Beginning farmers who have the knowledge and desire, but lack land. FarmUnk Offers: • The New to Farming Program provides direct links between beginning or entering farmers and current landowners; practical assistance for assessing land, farming practices, business planning, and market development; and access to capital and training or apprenticeship programs. The Farm Transition Program provides direct links between farmers in transition — retired or retiring farmers — and beginning or entering farmers. The program is designed for landowners who want to stay on their farms and provide mentoring or groom an operating partner. The program provides useful information on successful transition strategies, retirement options, tax and estate planning, and alternatives to development. • The Farm /Farmer Matching Program provides direct links between landowners with underutilized or unused farmland and those interested in farming. The program provides assistance in identifying lease /sale opportunities and structuring lease /sale agreements. •. A Non - Profit Resource Center, a one -stop resource -base for financial planning, estate planning, farm planning and management, real estate, farm product marketing, land trusts, and agricultural production. • The Counseling Program consists of a pool of qualified resource providers with expertise in a http://www.wafarmlink.orgfWhat%20is%20farmlink.htrn 1/14/03 Welcome to Washington FarmLink! Page 2 of 2 114 broad range of fields to provide specific, one- on-one assistance to entering, transitioning and /or exiting farmers. The program provides information and technical assistance regarding transition planning, estate planning, marketing -and other techniques to ensure that each party's financial needs are met and that land stays in agriculture. The Communications Plan is aimed at creating statewide visibility in the agriculture community through workshops, educational support, and outreach. . Mentoring/Apprenticeship Programs are available to help provide hands -on experience to beginning or entering farmers, or those wishing to improve their stewardship skills. How Does it Work? Land owners and aspiring farmers complete a questionnaire describing their goals; situations and resource needs. Data from completed questionnaires are entered into a database and initially matched with likely prospects. Each initial match is screened for common goals and interests, as well as logistical requirements. Applicants are given lists of potential matches and can contact those farmers. FarmLink representatives will stay in contact over the long -term to offer any additional counseling program resources on an as- needed basis. For more information please call (Toll Free) 1 -877- 728 -9453 or steve.evans@,metrokc.gov What is FarmUnk? I Looking for land to farm? (Want to sell or lease farmland ?l Home TOP King County I News J Services I Comments I Search Links to extemal sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http://www.wafarmlink.org/Vv'hat`/`20is%20fannlink.htn 1/14/03 New England LAND -LINK A comprehensive, regional farm transfer program sponsored by the New England Small Farm Institute Post Office Bog 608, Belchertovin, MA 01007 (413) 323 -4531 FARM PROPERTY APPLICATION: looking for II APPLICATION: land I DATABASE land owner /manager TO F. ABOUT NEW ENGLAND LAND -LINK: New England LAND -LII�'K (NEIL) helps farmers and landholders locate and transfer farms throughout the six New England states. Farm transfer means passing a farm, farmland, and /or farm business from one party to another. Transfers happen within families or between unrelated parties. Transfer options include sale, rental, lease, "work -in ", and other tenure relationships: Since 1994, NELL has helped hundreds of entering, exiting and relocating farmers, and non- farm?ng owners and managers of valuable agricultural land. Program staff work and link with technical assistance providers in each New England state to provide customized support services and information. NELL is a member of the National Farm Transition Network, established in 1992 to promote programs that support the next generation of family farms. New England Land -Link offers: • Matching service, linking "lookers" and farm "holders" • Publications: books, information sheets, sample lease and rental agreements • Resource directory (by state and by topic) • Workshops (covering farm transfer planning, access to land; estate planning, etc.) • Customized referral (e.g. legal, financial, land use) • Technical assistance and consultation • Lease design and negotiation • Individual support& follow -up To preserve and revitalize New England agriculture, we need. Improved access to farmland http:/ /www.smallfarm.org/nell/nell.html 1/14/03 jib — Successful farm succession to family members Innovative farm transfer strategies Community partners New tenure models JOINING NEW ENGLAND LAND -LINK: entitles you to receive: Database matching service: Data from your completed application will be entered into the New England LAND -LINK computer database. We will do a search to match your needs and interests with listings in the database. You will be sent a list: Farmers lookingforfarmland will be sent contact-infotmation and a brief description of each property. Farmland owners will be sent a letter providing the number of potential matches and may obtain contact information upon request It is expected that farmers looping for land will initiate contact with farmland owners. Farmland owners may also choose to send additional information to farmers or initiate contact Following your initial receipt of matches, you will receive a phone call from a LAND -LINK staff person to review progress. Your application is active for one year from the date we receive it. You will receive an update every time there is a relevant listing and an invitation to renew annually. . Personalized contact by LAND -LENS staff . Farm Transfer Information Sheets . Customized referrals . Technical assistance and consultation' Application Form for Farmers Looking for Land Application Form for Farmland Owners and Managers PUBLICATIONS: - =` New England LAND -LINK • Transferring the Farm Series: Access to Land . -b- - - - This fact sheet is designed to address some of the. issues facing both beginning and experienced farmers in gaining access to land in New England. Locating, assessing, and acquiring land will be addressed in http:/ /www.smallfarm.org/nell/nell.html 1/14/03 117 brief. This four page publication is a must -have for anyone looking for a faun in the Northeast Includes information on alternative tenure models and resource assessment For a more in -depth treatment on these topics we suggest the publication below. Available for $2.00 from the New England Small Farm Institute. • Farmland Transfer & Protection In New Epja and: A Guide for Entering & ExitinFarmers 124 pages of helpful information on farm transfer and secure tenure for the next generation of New Enland farmers. Useful for farm families and service providers involved in farmland access, transfer, and protection. Topics include: • Issues and opportunities for entering farmers: Getting on the farm • Issues and opportunities for exiting farmers: Passing on the farm • Issues and opportunities for non - farming landowners • Farm transfer and tenure arrangements • Farm business arrangements • Tenure without title • Transfers between unrelated parties • Finalizing and monitoring the transfer process • What is Fa=land Preservation and who should be involved • Permanent protection with conservation easements: • What are they and how they work • Other permanent protection techniques • Land use planning to protect farmland • Temporary protection • Where to go fbr help • Publications • Worksheets and sample documents Available for $12.00 from the New England Small Farm Institute. • Transferring Ownerft of Farm Assets or Retiring from Fa available from Land Link VT • Your First Farm Loan available from Land Link VT HELPFUL LINKS: FARMLAND PRESERVATION RESOURCES: American Farmland Trust "American Farmland Trust is a private, nonprofit organization founded in 1980 to protect http:// www .smallfarm.org/nell/nell.html 1/14/03. our nation's farmland. AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote fanning practices that lead to a healthy environment." Land Trust Alliance "The Land Trust Alliance promotes voluntary land conservation and strengthens the land trust movement by providing leadership, information, skills and resources land trusts need to conserve land for the benefit of communitites and natural systems. LTA /Northeast serves New york and the six New England states. You can visit their website to find land trusts in the areas in which you are interested in finding farmland." Massachusetts APR Program "The APR Program is a voluntary program which is intended to offer a non - development alternative to farmers and other owners or "prime" and "state impoi-tant" agricultural land who are faced with a decision regarding future use and disposition of their farms. Towards this end, the program offers to pay farmers the difference between the "fair market value" and the "agricultural value" of their farmland in exchange for a permanent deed restriction which precludes any use of the property that will have a negative impact on its agricultural viability." . Working Farm LandscMes• Resources for the Northeast A compilation of resources put together through the Harvard University Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies. OTHER LINKING PROGRAMS: Land Link Vermont Maine Farmlink Maryland Farm Link New Jersey Farm Link New York Farmlink Pennsylvania Faun Link National Farm. Transition Network FARMING RESOURCES: CONNECTICUT: CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE DIRECTORY: An excellent resource maintained by the Connecticut Department of Agriculture CONNECTICUT FARM BUREAU HARTFORD FOOD SYSTEMS: The mission of the Hartford Food System is to enable people in Connecticut to have access to nutritious and affordable food. To this end, the HFS implements programs and advances policies that promote a sustainable and equitable food system, disseminates information that enables Connecticut residents to make informed food choices, and supports responsible food policies at all levels of government- http://www.smallfarm.org/nell/nell.htnl 1/14/03 H9 NOFA CONNECTICUT: The .Connecticut chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Organization THE NEW ROXBURY LAND TRUST: The New Roxbury Land Trust, Inc. (NRL'I) is a local, non -profit organization in Woodstock, CT. it -was created in 1999 to preserve open space, protect agricultural lands and forests, protect natural resources and wildlife habitats, and encourage the use of conservation easements and rights of way. Help preserve and enhance the rural character of Woodstock, CT. MASSACHUSETTS: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE MASSACHUSETTS FARM BUREAU NOFA MASSACHUSETTS: The Massachusetts chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Organization RHODE ISLAND: RIFARMER.ORG: Rhode Island's Farthing Community- On -Line Resources. This website is brought to you by the Rhode Island Center for Commercial. Agriculture (R.ICCA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the USDA. Registration is free and open to any member of the Rhode Island or nearby Massachusetts farming community. ' RHODE ISLAND FARM BUREAU RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: Home of their Division of Agriculture NOFA RHODE ISLAND: The Rhode Island chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Organization NEW HAMPSHIRE: BEGINNER FARMERS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: Beginner Farmers of New Hampshire is a farmer to fanner network with the goals of connecting farmers and the community, sharing ideas and information, and accessing technical assistance and agricultural education. Our collaborative efforts help small and beginner farmers achieve their goals, strengthen their communities, boost the agricultural industry and economy, and improve quality of life in New Hampshire. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT /TRAINING AND OTHER NESFI OFFERINGS: http:// www .smallfarm.org/nell/nell.himl 1/14/03 1VGVY 1111�iCi11LL LGLt1LL LLLil�. 1 4��+ V Vi V 1 4 it Northeast Workers on Organic Farms ( NEWOOF): NEWOOF is a regional Farm Apprenticeship Placement Service. Sponsored by the New England Small Farm Institute, and coordinated from their offices in Massachusetts, NEWOOF annually publishes an annotated list of farms (generally in the Northeast) seeking apprentices. The list is made available to interested workers who are responsible for contacting the farm(s) of their choice, and directly arranging for interviews. 'The spectrum of possible apprenticeship arrangements is broad. Each year, over 70 farms are listed, offering opportunities for anything from full -time, live -in arrangements to weekend commuting, in exchange for room, board, crop share, or wages. An apprenticeship may last anywhere from a week to a full year or more. Each farm is unique, and apprenticeships are flexible. Level of training, labor requirements, and extra educational and recreational opportunities are all worked'out individually between farmers and apprentices. The Farm List is published annually in mid January, with updates in February and May if needed. The deadline for Farmers is December 15 for the first publication, and requests for updates will be accepted until April 15. Apprentice requests are accepted year - round. (If you are requesting a Farm List late in the calendar year, please specify whether you would like the. current year's List or the upcoming List.) Please note that NEWOOF does not publish a national list, nor does it place international workers. WORKSHOPS CONFERENCES and other TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES Visit our CALENDAR of events for all the latest regional offertings. CONTACT US: Program Director: Kathy Ruhf email: kruhf(a7smallfarm.org Program Manager: Matt Rulevich email landlinksmal farm.org NESFI HOME I FARMLAND DATABASE I APPLICATION: LOOKER I APPLICATION: OWNER http://www.smallfarm.org/nell/nell.htnl 1/14/03 12:x. Staff Paper 363 June 2003 The Impact of Open Space and Potential Local Disamenities on Residential Property Values in Berks County, Pennsylvania Richard Ready' and Charles Abdalla2 'Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Environmental Economics 2Associate Professor of Agricultural and Environmental Economics Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 Staff Papers are circulated without formal review by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Content is the sole responsibility of the authors. This report is a shortened version of a longer "report, "GIS Analysis of Land Use on the Rural Urban Fringe: The Impact of Land Use and Potential Local Disamenities on Residential Property Values and on the Location of Residential Development in Berks County, Pennsylvania ", which is available at http: / /Ianduse.aers.psu.edu For more detail on the data, methods, or results, please see the longer report. This research was supported by the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development (NERCRD), under Internal Agreement No. 2093 -TPSU- USDA -0496. Additional support that allowed collection of data on potential local disamenities came from Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), under Grant in Aid No. 62114. The authors are grateful for support and assistance from Dr. Timothy Kelsey, Dr. Rick Day, Stewart Bruce and Yanguo Wang, for local knowledge of agricultural production provided by Clyde Myers, Donald Reinert, Mena Hautau, and Dr. David Beyer, for invaluable help on assembling datasets from Martin Moyers and Bill Kochan, and for the guidance and help provided by the Project Local Advisory Group, Clyde Myers, Judith Schwank, Glenn Knoblauch, Duane Rashlich, Tami Hildebrand, Kenneth Grimes, and Robert Behling. The authors are also grateful to four anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The authors assume all responsibility for the statements made in this report. 122 The Impact of Open Space and Potential Local Disamenities on Residential Property Values in Berks County, Pennsylvania Executive Summary This research project estimated the impact that surrounding land use and potential local disamenities have on residential property values in Berks County, Pennsylvania. An implicit house price function was estimated based on 8,090 single family houses sold between 1998 and 2002, using regression analysis. Information on surrounding land use, proximity to potential local disamenities, and structural attributes of the houses were used to explain variation in house prices. Within 400 meters of the house, the land use that has the most positive impact on house price was open space, followed by large -lot single family residential land. Gbmmercial, small -lot single family residential, and multi -unit residential were less desirable. The least desirable land use within 400 meters of the house was industrial. Also, open space on parcels that are covered by conservation easements, including agricultural conservation easements, has a less - positive amenity impact than open space not covered by such easements. This does not necessarily mean that easements cause nearby property values to decrease. It may be that farms with agricultural conservation easements tend to be managed more intensively, which may be seen as less attractive by nearby homeowners. Between 400 and 1600 meters away from the house, the land use with the most positive amenity impact on house price was commercial, followed closely by large-lot single family residential. Of open space uses, only land that is owned by Local, State or Federal Government and land that is covered by conservation easements have a statistically significant positive amenity value. Several potential local disamenities were found to have a negative impact on nearby house prices. Of the potential local disamenities investigated, the impact of landfills on house price was largest, and extended the farthest (up to 3200 meters). A landfill located 800 meters from a house decreases that house's sale price by an estimated 6.9 %. The impact of a large -scale animal production facility (over 200 animal equivalent units or aeu's) on house price was about one half to two thirds as large as that from a landfill (4.1% at 800 meters), and did not extend as far (up to 1600 meters). The impacts on house price from mushroom production and from the regional airport were much less (0.4% and 0.2 %, respectively, at 800 meters). The impact from high- traffic roads was small, and extended only a short distance. No significant impact was found for sewage treatment plants. Additional analysis attempted to investigate whether different types of animal production facilities had different impact on nearby house prices. Differences in the impact due to differences in the size of the operation (number of aeu's) were not statistically significant. Further, medium -sized production facilities (200 to 300 aeu's) were found to have a statistically significant negative effect on house prices when considered apart from larger facilities. Similarly, the impact did not vary significantly by species (poultry, swine, and beef /dairy). An analysis of proximity of animal production facilities and residential properties showed that the 1.23 density of single family homes around animal production facilities was lower than the average for rural parts of the county. An implication is that some potential for conflicts is avoided due to the way in which these land uses are located on the land. The total impact on surrounding house prices was calculated for a landfill, the regional airport, and an animal production facility. The average impact on the value of 3342 houses located within 3200 meters was $2442 (all values are in 2002 dollars). The total impact on all houses was. $ 8,162,000, which is 2.6% of the assessed value of the affected properties. The average impact of the regional airport on 2256 houses located within 1600 meters of the airport runway and its flight paths was $104, and the total impact on the value of these properties was $235,000, or 0.1% of the assessed value of the affected properties. This calculation does not include 2391 properties located near the airport within the City of Reading. The average impact of a single animal production facility on 119 single family residences located within 1600 meters of the facility $1,803. The total impact on all 119 houses is $215,000, or 1.7% of the assessed value of the affected houses. These figures are intended as illustrations, and should not. be ,considered averages for similar facilities. The impact from any given landfill, airport, or animal production facility will depend on the number of houses located near the site, and on the market value of those houses absent the facility. The study area chosen, Berks County, was well suited to this type of analysis, in terms of data availability and the diversity and dispersed spatial pattern of land uses and agricultural production. The research method should be extended to more study areas, to see if differences in population density, demographics, or type and amount of open space and agricultural production influence the results. Until more research is conducted in more counties, care should be taken in extrapolating the results from this research to other regions. ii 124 The Impact of Open Space and Potential Local Disamenities on Residential Property Values in Berks County, Pennsylvania I. Introduction and Project Objectives Increased attention is being focused throughout the Northeast U.S. on how land use is changing over time. Concerns over urban "sprawl," with its patchy, diffuse pattern of development, include the loads placed on the transportation infrastructure, the costs of delivering local services, the impacts on natural systems, and the effects on the aesthetic and cultural value of the landscape. As residential development occurs in rural areas, traditional as well as more modem and larger -scale agriculture can become located in close proximity to residences, leading in some cases to conflict over land uses and property rights. Local authorities whose responsibility it is to manage and regulate growth and development need information on the relative desirability of alternative land use patterns. Property values provide one way to measure community members' preferences over land use patterns, as revealed through markets. The overall goal of this study was to estimate the impact of neighboring land use on resider$ial property values. Categories of neighboring land uses addressed were open space (versus developed uses) and land uses that may be seen as locally undesirable due to perceived or actual disamenities. The latter category of potential local disamenities included: landfills, airports, mushroom production, large -scale animal production, sewage treatment plants, and high-traffic roads. The above goal was accomplished in two phases. First, a GIS database on land use and residential property values was developed for a county in Southeastern Pennsylvania, a region characterized by highly productive agricultural land but also by continuing development pressure and a rapid rate of farmland loss. In the second phase, an implicit house price function was estimated to explain variation in the sales price of single - family residential properties. Explanatory variables included: structural characteristics of the properties (square feet of living space, lot size, etc.), factors that vary spatially by local government (school district quality, zoning, etc.), measures of proximity to employment centers, measures of surrounding land use, and proximity to potential local disamenities. Based on the estimated implicit house price function, the marginal impacts of surrounding land use and local disamenities on residential property values were calculated. - H. Previous Research Many papers have used implicit pricing models to analyze the effects of open space and/or local disamenities on residential property values. However, results from these papers are mixed due to different kinds of open space considered, specification of the open space variables, and differences across study regions. The study closest to this one in purpose and method is that done by Irwin (2002). In an implicit pricing analysis of residential properties in Maryland, Irwin measures the proportion of area within 400 meters of each house in different land uses. Irwin finds that 1 5 compared to residential, commercial or industrial uses, open space located within 400 meters of a residential property has a positive impact on that property's price. Further, pasture and cropland generate higher amenity benefits to nearby residences than forested open space. Finally, both permanent conservation through easements and public ownership increase the positive impact that open space has on neighboring residential prices. . In addition to open space, we investigate in this project the impact on nearby residential property values of several different types of potentially undesirable facilities and land uses. These include sewage treatment plants, landfills, high-traffic roads, airport runways, mushroom production facilities and large -scale animal production facilities. Particular attention is paid to the potential local disamenity associated with animal production, as this is an activity that would be allowed on land that is covered by an agricultural conservation easement. Few implicit price studies have been conducted that specifically address the amenity impact of animal production on residential property values. Abeles- Allison and Connor (1990), in a study of property values near large hog operations in Michigan found that house values decreased by $1.74 for each additional hog within a 2 kilometer radius of the house. They did not find significant impacts outside of 2 kilometers. One limitation of this study is that it only included eight hog operations that had received multiple odor complaints. Property value impacts from these eight operations might well be greater than those from other operations that did not receive complaints. Palmquist et al (1997) measured'the impact on residential property values of hog production in the coastal plain of North Carolina, where some of the largest animal production facilities in the nation are located. For each residential property, the total amount of hog manure produced within '/2 mile, within 1 mile, and within 2 miles was determined. They found that house price was negatively affected by the concentration of hogs near the house, and that the negative impact on house price from a single hog operation could be as large as 8.4 %. The Michigan study assumed that the negative impact from a livestock operation on house prices increased proportionally with the number of livestock located near the house. The North Carolina study assumed that the impact from hog production was tied to the total tons of manure generated within each ring around the house. One issue. that is addressed in this project is the relationship between the impact of animal production on house price and the scale of animal production near the house. Second, the Michigan and the North Carolina studies are both restricted to hog operations. This project includes poultry, swine, and beef and dairy operations. Finally, the Michigan and North Carolina studies investigated the impact of animal production on house price in isolation. This study estimates the impacts from several potential local disamenities simultaneously, as well as from open space versus developed land use. III. The Study Area: Berks County Berks County occupies an area (864 square miles) between Philadelphia and Harrisburg in southeastern Pennsylvania. Today in Berks County, farming remains a very important sector amidst a surbanizing country -side and a diversifying economy. Currently, about 40% of the county's land is devoted to agriculture. An additional 34% is in other, mostly forested, open 4 12 F} space uses. As of 1997, Berks County had 221,511 acres in farmland, 187,645 acres in crop production, and 1,586 farms yielding total farm sales of almost $248 million. It ranked third in Pennsylvania in number of farms, cash receipts from agriculture products, layers, swine, corn grain, soybeans, and apples. It ranked fourth statewide in dairy, broilers, cattle and calves, peaches, nursery and greenhouse crops (includes mushrooms), and barley. Animal agriculture is significant to Berks County's agriculture. Fifty -two percent of the market value of agricultural products sold is livestock. In addition 35% of the market value is nursery and greenhouse, including mushrooms. Mushrooms are the largest market value crop grown (US Census of Agriculture 1997). More recent growth patterns reflect suburban sprawl outward from Reading as well as development in rural land beyond suburban areas, leading to increasing conflicts between rural residents and agriculture production over issues, such as odor, flies, chemical use, and farm traffic. To reduce rural urban conflict and increase the viability of the county's agricultural industry, Berks County has developed a suite of land use management tools to encourage landowners and municipalities to protect farming and related industries. The "Purchase of Agriculture Conservation Easements" and development of "Effective Agriculture Preservation Zoning" are the two approaches which are viewed as providing the agriculture resource base needed for future production. In its 1991 county comprehensive plan, the county set the goal of preserving 200,000 acres of farmland through these two programs. Specifically, the county desired to preserve large contiguous areas (minimum of 500 acres) with existing agricultural productivity. In addition, the Planning Commission initiated an Agricultural Zoning Incentive Program in 1997 to encourage municipal adoption of effective agricultural zoning (Myers and Auchenbach 2002). IV. Data and Methods The implicit house price function was estimated using 8,090 residential properties that were sold between 1998 and 2002. To focus on the rural/urban fringe, houses located in the City of Reading and New Morgan Borough were excluded from the analysis. Data on house sales and characteristics were obtained from a county -wide parcel map maintained by the Berks County Office of Assessment. For each house in the analysis, information vas collected on the sale price of the house, the size of the house, the lot size, the number of bedrooms, the number of bathrooms, whether the house has a basement, whether some of the finished area in the house is located in an attic, the exterior facade of the house, whether the house has central air conditioning, the physical condition of the house, the year of construction, the year sold, and whether the house had public water and/or public sewer. Nominal sale prices were inflated to 2002 dollars. A county -wide land use map was constructed based on the parcel map. Categories of land use were open space, residential, commercial, and industrial. For each house included in the analysis, the amounts of land in each land use within 400 meters of the house and within 1600 meters of the house were measured. Within the category of residential use five subcategories were defined, small -lot single family (less than 0.2 acres), medium -lot single family (0.2 to 0.5 acres), large -lot single family (0.5 to 1.5 acres) and very large -lot single family (over 1.5 acres). 121 Within the category of open space, the amount of open space that is in crop, pasture or grass cover (as opposed to forested or open water), the amount of open space owned by government entities, the amount of open space that is currently vacant but zoned for developed use, and the amount of open space covered by conservation easements were measured. The locations of potential disamenities were determined and mapped. There are four landfills located in Berks County, one regional airport twenty -seven sewage treatment plants (not counting plants located in the. City of Reading), seventh four properties that have been used for mushroom production, and seventy -one large -scale animal production operations, defined here as housing more than 200 animal equivalent units (aeu's), as defined for each species by the Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act (Act 6 of 1993) (Beegle 1997): For each house, the proximity of the house to potential local disamenities was measured. For landfills, mushroom ' production facilities, and high-traffic roads, the distance to the closest landfill, facility, or road was measured. For the regional airport, the distance to a line -extending two miles from either end of the main runway was measured. For sewage treatment plants and animal production facilities, the location to each plant or facility was measured. For each potential local disamenity, an index of proximity was constructed. These indices have the property that the impact on house price decreases as the distance from the house to the local disamenity increases, reaching 0 at a defined distance. For sewage treatment plants and animal production facilities, the indices have the additional property that each plant or facility can impact house price independently of other plants or facilities. Other databases used in the analysis included information on elevation and slope, soils, location of streams, zoning, school district, and commuting distance to regional employment centers, Reading, Allentown and Philadelphia. The implicit house price function was estimated using an instrumental variables approach, similar to that used by Irwin (2002). The instrumental variables approach is used to avoid potential bias in the estimation due to a form of relatedness, termed endogeneity, between land use and house prices. V. Results of Statistical Analysis of Residential Property Values Regression Results - House Characteristics Complete regression results are presented in the longer, technical report. The variables included in the estimated implicit house price function explained about 87 percent of the variation in house price. All of the coefficients for the structural characteristics of the house were statistically significant different from zero, and of the expected sign. The following characteristics are associated with higher house price: more square feet, more bathrooms, more bedrooms, existence of a basement, a brick, stone or masonry exterior, central air conditioning, better physical condition, and newer construction For a given size, a house is worth less if some of its finished area is in an attic. Houses located in school districts with higher average 12th grade PSSA test scores had higher sale prices. 4 1,2 Houses on more sloped lots are worth less. Elevation in and of itself does not influence house price, but elevation relative to the surrounding terrain does. Houses that sit above the surrounding terrain are worth more than those i at sit below the surrounding terrain. Public water service increases house value, but public sewer service does not. The high correlation between these two features made it more difficult to distinguish their individual effects. House prices did not increase as fast as inflation during the study period (real prices declined over time). Shorter commuting distance to Allentown and Philadelphia are associated with higher house prices, but shorter distance to Reading was not seen as a positive amenity. Zoning has little impact on house price. Of particular interest. are the results related to lot size. The relationship between house price and lot size is shown in Figure 1. The price of a house built on a 0.1 acre lot is normalized to equal 1.0. Figure 1 shows how the house price will increase as the lot size increases. . So, for example, a house built on a 1 acre lot will cost 32% more than the same house built on a 0.1 - acre lot. The marginal impact of additional lot size decreases, however, so that a house built on a 5 acre lot is worth only a little bit more than a house built on a 3 acre lot. This relationship can help inform developers and planners when considering density of a new residential development. 1.6 0 1.5 ai v �a c 1.4 a ° ul y 3 3 = t 1.3 w a R N W V 1.2 a ro a E t°i 1.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Lot Size (acres) Figure 1. Relative house price as a functiDn of lot size. Regression Results - Surrounding Land Use Table 'l summarizes the impact that neighboring land use has on house price. All impacts are measured relative to industrial use. In other words, for every acre of land within 400 meters of the house that is in forested, privately -owned open space, the house's price is 0.276% higher than it would have been if that acre of land had been in industrial use instead. The significance level states how confident we can be that the number listed is actually different from zero, and not E 12;4 simply the result of sampling error. Two asterisks indicate a result that is statistically signficant at the 5% level, one asterisk a result that is significant at the 10 % level, and "n.s." a result that is not significantly different from 0 at the 10% level. Table 1. Marginal Impacts of Land Use on House Price Distance From House W Within 400 meters 4 400 to 1600 meters Privately -owned Forested Open Space 0 0.276 * ** - -0.008 * *` Govt -owned Forested Open Space 0 0.281 * ** 0 0.0123 ' '* Privately -owned Grass, Pasture, and Crops 0 0.2373 * ** 0 0.000562 n n.s. Eased, privately -owned ** grass, pasture, crops 0 0.162 * ** 0 0.011 * Vacant privately -owned Open Space - -0.091 n n.s. - -0.002 n n.s. Single Family Residential - ** Small Lot 0 0.0284 n n.s. 0 0.0087 * Single Family Residential - Medium Lot 0 0.1927 * ** 0 0.0032 n n.s. Single Family Residential - *' Large Lot 0 0.2405 * ** 0 0.0293 * Single Family Residential - ** Very Large Lot 0 0.2143 * ** 0 0.0305 * Other (Non - Single Family) Residential 0 0.0383 n n.s. 0 0.013 Commercial 0 0.1089 n n.s. 0 0.0328 * ** -statistically significant at the 5% level * - statistically significant at the 10% level n.s. -not statistically significant Within 400 meters of the house, the land use with the largest positive amenity impact is forested, government -owned open space. However, forested, privately -owned open space has a similarly - high amenity value, and the difference between the two is not statistically significant. Open space in grass, pasture, and crops is less valued than forested open space, but again the difference is not statistically significant. Eased open space is less valued than noneased open space, and here the difference is statistically significant. Vacant open space is the least valued, and has in fact a more negative impact on land values than industrial land. Medium, Large, and Very Large lot residential development has a positive impact on house price, relative to industrial use. Differences among these three groups are not statistically significant. Small -lot residential use and norrsingle family residential use have lower amenity value, and are not statistically distinguishable from industrial use. 1