Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 112701a COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: November 19, 2001 Re: November 27 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for: The County's new Agricultural Economic Development Specialist, Mike Lanier, will be present to meet with us and discuss his role. Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2597) by Monday, November 26 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 Tuesday, November 27, 2001 Planning and Agricultural Center Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 7:30 p.m. Time Page AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:31 02 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 19 7:35 4. SPECIAL DISCUSSION Agricultural Economic Development Specialist — Mike Lanier 8:10 07 5. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2002 -2003 (Attachment 1) 8:30 6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Update on Farmland Mapping Project / Agricultural Priority Areas 09 b. Revisions to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance (Attachment 2) 11 c. 2002 Agricultural Summit Planning (Attachment 3) 8:55 15 7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS (please see attached) 9:00 8. ADJOURNMENT 02 Draft MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD September 19, 2001 PRESENT: Elizabeth Walters, Marty Mandell, Noah Ranells, Louise Tate, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, ERCD Preservation Planner Tina Moon Guests present: Carl Walters, Elise Margolas. ABSENT: Whit Morrow, Bob Strayhorn, Charles Thompson, Tony Kleese, Rodney Recor, ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Stancil called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m., thanked everyone for coming and introduced Ms. Margolas from Elysian Fields Farm. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 16, 2001, As there was not a quorum, the approval was deferred. ITEM #4: SPECIAL DISCUSSION — Local Community Supported Agriculture — Elise Margolas of Elysian Fields Farm (Cedar Grove Township). Elysian Fields Farm offers a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program. Participating members purchase a share from the farm prior to the growing season. The farm supplies the families or individuals with fresh organic produce once a week, each week, for the length of the growing season. The weekly distribution of produce consists of a wide variety of crops, which varies depending on what is in season as well as individual crop success. In addition, members are allowed to come to the farm at any time throughout the season to pick cut flowers and herbs and blueberries. Ms. Margolas gave an overview of her operation followed by a question and answer session. Stancil described the new Economic Agricultural Development Specialist's position and noted that the Ag Development person could provide help with the marketing component of CSA farm efforts. The annual Agricultural Summit was discussed and possibility of Ms. Margolas speaking about CSA farming. Draft September 19, 2001 03 ITEM #5. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2002 -2003 Stancil noted that it is time to begin the process of developing next year's 2002- 2003 Annual Action Plan for the Lands Legacy program. The Board of County Commissioners will be using this information at their December work session in preparing for budget requests. The APB will need to finalize their recommendations for farmland conservation easements and any recommendations on priorities at the November meeting. The action plan for this year says that we will pursue one conservation easement on a farm in a water supply watershed - -Cane Creek, Back Creek, or Upper Eno. Stancil reported that one of the biggest events for farmland preservation in Orange County occurred on August 30, 2001, when the BOCC unanimously adopted a Resolution of Intent to provide funding for conservation lands without public access. The resolution allows the BOCC, to agree to borrow 3 million in private placement funds to go towards non - public access conservation easements, during the extent of the bond referendum four -year period. This will change the County's Lands Legacy policy of aggressively pursuing matching funds but ensures that preservation efforts will not grind to a halt if funds are not available in the short -term. Stancil reviewed the Key Points Lands Legacy Farmland Preservation Projects 2002 -2003 handout. • Funding will come from $3 million in private placement funds (low -rate loans available for certain projects based on the County's top -notch bond rating). Funds to be available over four years 2002 -2006. • Seven farmers have expressed interest in selling development rights. Five are in identified protected watersheds. (one of these may be pursued in the current 2001 -2002 Annual Action Plan for a conservation easement. • NC Farmland preservation Trust Fund — unknown funding level for 2002. Possibly only funding transaction costs in 2001 -02. Pursue if available. • Leverage Clean Water management Trust Fund grants instead (for portions of farms along perennial streams in watersheds). • Federal funds from USDA or Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). Stancil noted that the following general course of action is given each year for the APB prior to November recommendations. Draft September 19, 2001 04 Possible Course of Action 1. Recommend that funds for 2002 -03 go toward acquisition of conservation easements for willing sellers in the Upper Eno, Back Creek, and Cane Creek watersheds. 2. Pursue Clean Water Management Trust Fund project and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund if available. 3. Complete identification of Agricultural Priority Areas (using new mapping) by December 31, 2001. Use this to help evaluate candidate sites and make final recommendations in early 2002. 4. If possible, work toward building on critical mass of protected lands /protected farmlands. Stancil suggested that if the APB might consider going ahead with their recommendations to the BOCC at the October meeting. Comments need only be three or four bullets saying where the APB thinks the County should focus conservation funding and activities for 2002 -2003. Staff to provide copy of previous year's recommendation. Discussion of these topics followed: • Requirements of the LLP concerning BOCC parameters for this program with the intent for general guidelines instead of requirements • Lands Legacy program has preference to preservation regarding farmland easement in Voluntary Agriculture Districts but not a requirement —which would encourage more agricultural districts • Transfer versus purchase of development rights on farmland • Try to incorporate horse – Equine farm operations into our farmland preservation programs including VADs • Encourage continuation of farming • Taking action before opportunities are lost • Paying on installments instead of paying total price upfront • Consider 10 year project plan • Lower acreage amounts for Voluntary Agricultural Districts ITME #6: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Update on Farmland Mapping Project/Ag Priority Areas Stancil reported that ERCD is continuing the work with Farm Service Agency staff and Soil & Water to develop our first farmland mapping in the county. Once the maps are completed, the APB can begin to evaluate potential farmland preservation properties based on the criteria adopted and the quality of farmland. Draft September 19, 2001 Stancil noted that staff have interviewed several candidates for the Agricultural Economic Development Specialist position and may extend an offer this week. The interview panel consisted of Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director, Fletcher Barber, Cooperative Extension Director, Royce Harden, Cooperative Extension, Russ Seibert from Maple View Farm and Dave Stancil. Funded for a two -year period, the position is intended to serve as an advocate for local growers, to help establish markets for agricultural products and to provide business planning for farmers. c. 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bond Stancil reviewed the bond language and projects. The November 6, 2001 ballot includes $20,000,000 for parks and open space bond, $27,000,000 for school facilities, $4,000,000 for affordable housing, and $4,000,000 for senior centers. Stancil explained the list of projects decided by the board, after a lot of lobbying by the towns. Much of the debate revolved around equity issues. What role should the County play in funding town projects? Town citizens pay county,taxes and would like to see a significant portion of bonds funds appropriated for town projects. A bond education committee is beginning to work on preparing education materials. Ideas about ways to promote farmland protection such as linking to watershed protection and the Lands Legacy program were discussed. ITEM #7: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ITEM #6: ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Draft September 19, 2001 0s 07 Attachment 1 Draft for Discussion Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2002 -2003 Recommendation Agricultural Preservation Board November 27, 2001 1. Continue to focus on farm easements in the Cane Creek, University Lake, Back Creek and Upper Eno watersheds 2. Where possible, attempt to build a critical mass of contiguous farm easements in these watersheds 3. Partner with OWASA, Soil and Water District, and Eno River Association where possible 4. As opportunities arise, consider Clean Water Management Trust Fund grants to augment County dollars. S. Pursue Farmland Preservation Trust Fund grants, whether for transaction costs or easements, as funds are available 6. Use the new Agricultural Priority Area formula to evaluate potential easement acquisitions 7. Conduct more outreach programs to make farmers aware of this voluntary program for easement acquisition 8. Other... Attachment 2 09 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: ERCD Staff Date: November 20, 2001 Subject: Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance During the past year the APB has discussed a variety of strategies to preserve farming and active agricultural lands in Orange County. The following items reflect potential revisions to our existing farmland preservation ordinance ( VFPPO) to better incorporate these new strategies. VFPPO Language Changes • Review the new model ordinance developed by North Carolina State University and consider using some of its language to revisit VAD issues. • Clarify the language in Section D. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES item 6. to more clearly differentiate the conservation agreement requirement to participate in a Voluntary Agricultural Districts versus a traditional conservation easement. Ways to Improve the Voluntary Agricultural District Program (VAD) • Increase the number of incentives to participate in the VAD program. • Reduce minimum farm size • Provide more benefits • Decrease number of disincentives to participate in the VAD program. • Revise agreement form • Reconsider qualifications for a seat on the APB. Utilizing the Farmland Ranking System • Update the ranking system to reflect agricultural priority areas (as information about the location of active farms becomes available). Other issues and potential partnerships • Economic Development for Agriculture • Farmland Preservation through land use planning • Pursue a Transfer of Development program with the Planning Department • Ensure that the APB has the opportunity to review development proposals with a one mile radius from VAD and have input into substantial land use planning policy and regulatory changes 10 Q •anfn A County Agrivu ttm al Q fi r"m;+ 306 Revere Road P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Attachment 3 MINUTES Orange County Agricultural Summit Planning Meeting Planning & Inspections Conference Room October 23, 2001, 10:00am Members present: Dr. Fletcher Barber, Jr., County Extension Director Barry Jacobs, Orange County Commissioner Karen McAdams, Agricultural Extension Agent Michael Lanier, Agricultural Economic Development Coordinator Tina Moon, ERCD Kay Evans, Administrative Secretary Welcome ....................................................... ............................... Dr. Fletcher Barber, Jr. County Extension Director Dr. Barber welcomed everyone to the meeting thanking them for attending. He then gave everyone an agenda and list of the planning committee members. Dr. Barber stated that the purpose of the meeting today is to set the date, time and focus for this year's Agricultural Summit. Proposed Program Activities ................................... ............................... Karen McAdams Agricultural Extension Agent Dr. Fletcher Barber, Jr. County Extension Director Dr. Barber stated that the feedback received from the farmers at last year's Agricultural Summit was to do something different this year. The farmers would like for the meeting to get back to something "hands -on ", such as tours. Maybe everyone could meet at a central location, then get on buses to visit and see what is going on out in the county at different locations. They would have lunch at one of those locations. Karen added that one farmer felt that it was time to do something different, as the number of farmers attending seems to drop each year. Karen stated that some felt if we have the same format, they are not sure we will get many farmers there. Karen stated that we could showcase what is being done in the county by others who have diversified. Maybe do specialty tours such as the Southeast Vegetable and Fruit .11 1u Expo in Greensboro or the National Strawberry Association's meeting in Greensboro in February. Maybe scholarships could be offered to farmers who would want to go to these meetings. Commissioner Jacobs stated that his reaction is, what we are saying is nothing special. Agriculture is special. This is a special time to bring it all together on a higher level of consciousness. Commissioner Jacobs suggested to have break -out groups; smaller, more interactive sessions. These groups would talk about something specific. Commissioner Jacobs stated that there is a utility to the structure that we don't want to lose. Dr. Barber added that this would be a good time to introduce Mike Lanier, our new Agricultural Economic Development Coordinator. This would help Mr. Lanier in putting together a survey of what we have in Orange County. Mike added that one possible topic could be "Kenaf — Emerging New Crop Industry ", being done by a farmer in Greene County. Maybe they could come and speak. Dr. Barber then asked for possible locations for the Agricultural Summit. Suggestions were A.L. Stanback Middle School, Pathways Elementary School, Schley Grange Hall and the Northern Orange Center. It was decided that we would try to secure the Northern Orange Center. Comments: ............................................................................ Commissioner Barry Jacobs Commissioner Jacobs stated that his ideas for this year's Agricultural Summit are: - Make Mike as manifest as possible. - Promote Agricultural Heritage. - Seek grant money, oral histories and traditions of Agriculture in Orange County. Talk to families about preserving their family's agricultural heritage. - Legislative items such as Use Value Legislation, farmer -to- farmer transfers. Possible speakers on this topic could be the Farm Bureau, Association of County Commissioners, or the legislators who introduced the legislation. Dr. Barber suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture, Meg Scott- Phipps, could give an overview at the beginning of the Summit, then Commissioner Jacobs could give an overview from the county level. Then the legislators could speak, followed by the introduction of Mike Lanier. After that, they could break out into three concurrent sessions. Commissioner Jacobs suggested a topic of the Association of Tax Assessors pushing to change use values; rental rates, etc. If it is going to be changed, what is best for us? This would give the farmers an opportunity to voice concerns to legislators and the Commissioner of Agriculture. Then maybe they would understand. Commissioner Jacobs also suggested that we could offer scholarships to events /expo's as doorprises. Tina Moon suggested linking the concurrent sessions to future field trips. Also, the CSA person could be a potential speaker. Dr. Barber suggested that maybe the People's Channel could video the meeting and break -out sessions and run the tape on their cable channel as a community service. When they do this type of service, they would also give us a copy of the video tape of the program. This could be loaned out to farmers that don't have cable. Dr. Barber will contact the People's Channel to see if it would be possible for them to attend. Discussion Topics: Date: The Planning Committee selected Friday, November 1, 2002 as the date for the Agricultural Summit, with an inclement weather date of Friday, November 8, 2002. Time: The Planning Committee set the times as follows: 8:30- 9:OOam Registration and refreshments 9:00 -12:00 Meeting (specific agenda times to be determined at a later meeting) 12:00 -1:00 Lunch 1:00 Adjournment Location: Northern Orange Center, Cedar Grove Budget: $2,100.00 Meal: To be determined at a later meeting. Next Meeting: November 13, 2001 10:00am, Planning & Inspections Conference Room Dr. Barber then adjourned the meeting at 11:07 a.m. Attachment: Updated Planning Committee Members List l� 15 Agricultural Preservation Board Additional Information November 27, 2001 16 Fall 2001 Agricultural Preservation Board Priorities and Planned Items (in no order) • Develop recommendations on farm easements for Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2002 -2003 / recommendations on a second farmland conservation easement for 2001 -2002 • Recommendations on changes to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance (including potential changes to Voluntary Agricultural District guidelines) • Identify and recommend Agricultural Priority Areas using new farmland maps, to be incorporated into Lands Legacy program • Planning for 2002 Agricultural Summit • Other V MO 1� O �1 ttI � 1� U �+W CN C O N m � o =o L o N w 0 3 O V el ` :1 �1 ^^Wl ryryry� �1 �1 0 O obi 0 w M O n v J ^ N N N 2: N O LL ll'1 OO LN F et N C4 M ©N Q F- N P N M ^ m N N co v n ^ N N N P l!1 NO Vl — — N W Ln LL ^ ^ N > F m N M !r b O Lfl N N n N N V O ^ N N o n .t ; vt M N M o LL N P .� N M M N N 7 o V N P — N w LL ^ N N 'O N N 'I. CO S F n N N U F o N N — CO LI1 N Cl, F V N W 20- N et ^ Vhf o ^V^ v M N M N P l!1 NO Vl — — N W Ln LL ^ ^ N > F m N M !r b O Lfl N N n N N V O ^ N N o n .t ; vt M N M o LL N P .� N M M N N 7 o V N P — N w Ln 'O N N LL — N N A et ^ m m N F o N N — CO LI1 in 7 N V" W N P .a F- m ^, ,.. N Vhf rL N m 47 O n .t vt M N N P l!1 NO Vl — — N W Ln LL ^ ^ N > F m N M !r b O Lfl N N n N N V O ^ N N o n .t ; vt M N M o LL N P .� N M M N N 7 o v ^ m N N w F- 'O N N rL N ^ - m N F o N N — CO LI1 in 7 N o n v7 .O m N N ^ l P N rO LL l CC) F- f ^ N 41 :3 ti m N m F- N P N m ^ m N N v n N N L fc 0 N P o v ^ m N N w N N Q LL n N N Ron ti - ov z F o N N 7 Ln N ®N ti � d QO N N Vhf rL N m 47 M O Vf N P N M L fc ^ N N � o m o n w N N Q n Ron ti N P J0 F Ln ^ ^ N ov z o L � � d _ —C, N M Vhf N P ^ N M In N P 47 v m ^ N N in M N L Lon .�.i V �L W F— W oN o N u z m LL ul , I. ^ O N O n tt LL m o m o F- N P N M 3^�QNN V — N CO O N N v V1 ^ ^ N N C% CL ti C Q Q1 au 0 z 1 z 4- j Q v .Q v a 4.1 Ln c aJ 0 u b U o� a QCD Pa 17 ^ N N � m o n N N LL ^ W N N tJ N P J0 F Ln ^ ^ N p F n N N Q P (JN d _ —C, N M N P ^ N M In N P v m ^ N N z 4- j Q v .Q v a 4.1 Ln c aJ 0 u b U o� a QCD Pa 17 2 M o n N P N M V-1 LL ^ W N N V co p F n N N Q P (JN 0 M O ^ N N P N M N d — O -N in M N z 4- j Q v .Q v a 4.1 Ln c aJ 0 u b U o� a QCD Pa 17 N a v 0 N ^� LL N V 'J F- M N M A P N PON m U M O ^ N N P N M t O N N co n N N M O n v1 � N N z 4- j Q v .Q v a 4.1 Ln c aJ 0 u b U o� a QCD Pa 17 tF m vl n ^ N N m o n LL � N N V U F N P N P M O ^ N N P N M In N P n O N N z 4- j Q v .Q v a 4.1 Ln c aJ 0 u b U o� a QCD Pa 17 I �s 19 County bo vin easy approval Despite opposition from northern Bonds that will provide $47 mil- essary funds through bonds in won 10,864 to 8,940, or 55 percent lion n financing for new schools order to build schools that we to 45 percent. Orange, voters approve funding won by an 11,818 to 8,030 margin, know we need," Didow said. Jacobs said the commissioners remain comin for schools, parks, senior centers, or 60 percent of the vote in unoffi "This is very good news for m- tously on issuing the bonds. Dur- housing. cial returns. Turnout was 26 per- b entary number nine and se o ing the campaign, bond propo- cent of active registered voters in ber v 10 and for the next phase of nents said they would slow the By KIRK Ross the county. renovation projects." use of the bonds rather than Staff Writer Nick Didow, Chapel Hill-Car- County Commissioner Barry lunge ahead in a shaky econo- CHAPEL HILL — Orange rboro school board chair, said he Jacobs, who helped direct the my County's four bond questions was pleased at the turnout and county's bond strategy, said he "The commissioners are going received a resounding yes Tues- that financing for the district's was also pleased to see the vote to move forward in a fiscally The parks bond, which responsible way," Jacobs said. day as voters approved new next two elementary schools has tallies come n so high. A strong vote for the bonds n financing for schools, parks, been assured by the vote. is the senior centers and affordable years for usto be obtaining nec� See BONDS, Page A6 uperfund championed by Jacobs housing. Bonds continued from page Al the southern part of the county overcame opposition in northern Orange, fueled by an anti -bond campaign that warned of tax increases. For example, the school bonds passed 435 to 293 in the Estes Hills precinct in Chapel Hill but failed 201 to 416 at the Grady Brown precinct in Hills- borough. Kathy Hartkopf, spokesperson for Citizens for a Better Way, a Hillsborough -based group that opposed the bonds, said she was disappointed, but thought the effort proved that not everyone was happy with the way the coun- ty was being run. "If 5oo votes would have gone differently, we would have seen three 'of'the bonds 'do dowH to defeat," she said. Hartkopf said Citizens for a Better Way would remain active as a group and "prepare for the next battle." The split between northern and southern Orange precincts showed, she said, "that there is real concern in northern Orange," Two of the happier bond sup- porters Tuesday night were Robert Seymour and Robert Dowling. Seymour, who campaigned for the $4 million senior center bond, said he had waited a long time for the victory. The bond referendum passed 10,702 to 9,037, or 54 per- cent to 46 percent. A senior center bond in 1997 went down to defeat. "I'm very pleased," he said. "It's something that should have come sooner." Dowling, director of Orange Community Housing Corp., said that the $4 million affordable housing bond would quickly be put to use. He said the Chapel Hill Town Council's recent heavy focus on affordable housing helped the bond, which was approved 10,383 to 9,339, or 53 per- cent to 47 percent. "The Town Council with their emphasis„ on, affordable ordable housing has really helped awareness," he said. County officials estimate that the total $75 million package, which is expected to be phased n over three to five years, would add roughly 7.5 cents to the tax rate — an additional $150 per year for a $200,000 home. Nearly two- thirds of this year's bond referendum — $47 million — will go to the county's two school systems. Orange County Schools will A6 is The Chapel Hill News receive a total of $19.4 million - 41 percent — of the total for schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro schools will get,$27.4 million. The two big- ticket items are a new middle school for Orange County at $18,5 million and two elemen- tary schools at $12.8 million each. The remaining money for schools will go toward renovations at older schools. Park projects earmarked in tho bond are; to Homestead Road Aquatics Center — $3.5 million. 9P Chapel Hill and Carrhoro Greenways -- $1.75. 0. Lands Legacy — $7 million. m Smith Middle School Nark -- $250,000. m Soccer Superfund — $2 mil- lion. a Southern Village Park — $2 million. a Cedar Grove Park - -- $1,2 mil- lion. to Old 86 and Eubanks Road Park — $1.2 million. m Efland Cheeks Park - -- $250,000. a Fairview Park — $850,000. Jonnelle Davis contributed to this report.. Kirk Ross can be reached at 932 -2005 or kross(nnando.com 40 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairs, County Advisory Boards and Commissions FROM: Stephen H. Halkiotis DATE: October 26, 2001 I RE: County Commissioners' Annual Planning Retreat The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold its annual planning retreat on Saturday, December 8 th We ask that you communicate to us the top one or two priorities of your Board or Commissiun for the next fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002. We recognize that your top priorities may be continuing functions or needs which have not been addressed or new ones which have come to your attention. Whether or not you choose to submit something from your board /commission, please, at the minimum, complete the attached form and return to Beverly A. Blythe by November 27. Your comments will be helpful to the County Commissioners in finalizing priorities. While the agenda has not been set for the retreat, if you would like to address the County Commissioners, please indicate at the top of page one of the form by printing the name of the person who will speak and their telephone number. We ask that you keep your comments to 5 minutes. The County Commissioners thank you for volunteering your time in service to the citizens of Orange County and we welcome your views in our policy making process. By working together we can continue to make Orange County the best. cc: Staff Support 21 ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INPUT FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT December 8, 2001 The Board of Commissioners has expressed interest in receiving input from various advisory boards and commissions in preparation for the BOCC's annual planning retreat. Please complete the following information, limited to the front and back sides of this form. Other background materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this form. Board/Commission Name: # Positions Specified by BOCC: Chair's Name: Chair's Phone: Chair's E -mail: Chair's Fax: Primary County Staff Contact: Brief Statement of Board/Commission's Assigned Charge and Responsibilities List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually ZG What 2001 -2002 BOCC adopted goal(s), if any, does this board/commission have a role in carrying out? Describe this board/commission's activities /accomplishments in carrying out the 2001- 2002 BOCC goal(s), if applicable. Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2002 -2003 as they relate to established BOCC goals. What activities does this board/commission contemplate, and/or what issues does this board/commission foresee at this time, that could lead to a proposed new BOCC goal(s) for 2002 -2003? 23 In priority order, what are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the upcoming fiscal year that it plans to address, regardless of their relationship to any existing or new BOCC goal? Describe any training related to its primary responsibilities that this Board/Commission has received during 2001, either collectively, or for individual members. m UR I . il I M�i Rj A4. -vt 20 -jo 4"Q -A,- I N b. Off, =- I m I I = 010 w w � I I Irm- I ilff4d A IM1""bims 25 all comes to Washington, D.C., slowly. The days lengthen, the leaves start to drop, just a few at first; the morning air feels a little cooler. And Congress comes back from its summer recess. But it's not business as usual this year. Not after September 11. Policy that was being debated before that day has been pushed aside while the nation turns to more pressing issues. But gradually, Congress will renew its efforts on work such as the farm bill, and American Farmland Trust hopes to shape the new thinking on federal farm policy with the help of a national poll of voters. EVERY FIVE YEARS, Congress turns its attention to the state of American agriculture. It puts together what is known as the farm bill, defining and setting funding levels for a wide array of programs from commodity sup- ports and trade policy to conservation, re- search and education. This tradition began during the Depression, when farm incomes sank and the food supply appeared in jeopardy. Today's programs are monumental in scope and scale: Just last year, spending on agricultural programs soared to $32 billion for the year. Conservation programs —those projects and departments whose focus is on protecting the environment and wildlife —are allocated just a fraction of that spending, clocking in at about 8 per- cent of last year's spending. Conservation efforts connected to agriculture started way back in 1935 with the creation of the Soil Conservation Service to help prevent another Dust Bowl of soil erosion. Now, the six major programs that exist to protect wildlife and wetlands, to control soil erosion and to save farmland from development are increasingly popular with farmers. Some attribute that popularity to a realization among landowners that what these programs actually do is com- pensate farmers and ranchers for the public benefits that flow from their lands. It is the surrounding communities that enjoy the benefits of cleaner water and air, wildlife habitat and green open space. Yet as Ralph Grossi, presi- dent of AFT, pointed out in testimony before Congress early this summer, it all hinges on the farmer and rancher — and on the funding to support them: "Previous programs have firmly demonstrated that farmers will do their share to tackle conservation chal- lenges if given adequate support, but conservation pro- grams are badly oversubscribed. More than half of all farm- ers seeking technical assistance to enhance their steward- ship are turned away. So too are three out of every four farmers seeking help from the Environmental Quality Incentive Program to improve water quality, or help from the Wetland Reserve Pro- gram to restore wet- lands. And approxi- mately 4,000 farmers and ranchers in the path of sprawl who are willing to sell develop- ment rights to main- tain productive farms near metro areas have been rejected due to inadequate funds." Although delivered by Grossi, the testimo- ny before the subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture was the work of a coalition of conservation groups. Starting last year, more than 15 influential national conservation groups including Environmental Defense (ED), Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Trust for Public Land (TPL) have been collaborating with AFT to strengthen conservation programs in agriculture. Join Hands and Run Hard With more than 55 percent of the American landscape given over to farm and ranch land, it is not surprising that other savvy conservation groups are looking to the farm bill as well. And earlier this year, Congress passed a budg- et resolution that makes an average of $17 billion per year available for agriculture programs over the next decade, more than double what was previously available. So mak- ing sure that Congress's decision is well- informed becomes paramount. "The theory is that together we can swing this boat around so that we have a farm bill for everyone rather than AMERICAN FARMLAND FALL 2001 15 26 a farm bill that sends the vast majority of money to just 10 states," points out Susanne Fleek, director of government relations for EWG. "What we're really talking about is transforming the way the government thinks about farm policy —it has so much impact on Americans' daily lives, in everything from the food we eat to the water we drink." One of the strengths AFT brings to the coalition is its research capacity. Starting last fall, AFT planned a series of research projects to help shape the new legislation. It's a simple but vital part of the legislative process: By providing objective and verifiable data for legislators to make strong arguments, it is more likely that champions of strong con- servation programs will win their fights in committee meet- ings and on the floor of Congress. Working with involved funders like The Joyce Foundation, the first piece AFT crafted was a national voter opinion poll to bring the voice of the people to legislators in Washington. "This is What We Want" Susan Butler farms with her brothers and other family members in Montgomery County, Maryland, a mere 25 miles from the nation's capital. They use their land to grow pick - your -own fniits and vegetables. In June, Butler came to Washington to offer the opening remarks to a packed press conference releasing the results of AFT's national poll. She talked about the pressures of farming in a heavily urbanized county, even one that has made a strong com- mitment to keeping agriculture. "We have generations and generations that are coming to visit and pick at the farm," Butler explained. "But there are pressures— someone wants to put a transmission tower on the farm, a new ex -urban neighbor across the road doesn't like the noise we create in our berry patch, and traf- fic around the farm has gotten terrible." The results of the national voter opinion poll released in June not only support Butler and other farmers, but show that Americans have a clear sense of what well- managed farmland provides. And not only do voters know about federal payments to farmers, they support them —but they want the payments linked to conservation. The poll was conducted by the Public Opinion Research Lab at Northern Illinois University, under the leadership of political scientist Dr. J. Dixon Esseks, who has been surveying agricultural issues for close to 20 years. "What really jumped out at us was the solid connection between agriculture and conservation in the mind of the voter," explained Esseks. "Over the past 19 years I have repeatedly surveyed farmers and found them very willing to conserve natural resources. These new results strongly indicate that conservation- oriented farm programs will please not just farmers, but most voters" When asked a balanced question about what people value in farms and ranches, 58 percent of voters listed wildlife habitat as something they valued "highly" as a O 0 a F U O s 0 Susan Butler at Butler's Orchard has watched the farm be slowly encircled by housing developments (right). quality of farms and ranches. When adding in those who value that quality "moderately," the result was a strong 82 percent who see "providing wildlife habitat" as a key value of farms and ranches. Scenic beauty was next, with 46 per- cent "highly" valuing it and 77 percent combined, and recreational opportunities came in at 32 percent "highly" and 58 percent combined. These are all conservation qual- ities— things that the American public wants to "buy" from farmers and ranchers through conservation programs. In presenting poll results, Grossi pointed out that voters are concerned about the impact of not having conservation programs in agriculture. "In a question on voter concerns that included some non - agricultural items, the stewardship problems rose to the top of the concern list," said Grossi. "And in the con- text of major public policy themes like better education and energy issues, we found that a majority of voters -53 percent —would like to spend more federal dollars to keep farmland from being developed." The poll, now being expanded to provide regionalized results, has become a helpful tool in starting discussions and informing decisions. Through media coverage and cre- ation of a hand -out for legislators, AFT and its allies will use the results to drive home the need for effective, well - funded conservation programs in the upcoming legislation. Laying Out the Plan Before breaking for the end -of- summer recess, the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee put forth their version of the farm bill. That's the first shot fired in a 16 AMERICAN FARMLAND FALL 2001 27 complex two -track system that will have the House and the Senate discussing, creating and voting on their own ver- sions of the farm bill before blending them together into one final version for the White House to sign. = yonder ul _ f But for AFT and its partner organizations in the con- servation coalition, it is clear what needs to be done. "What we have here are two pieces to a three -part equa- tion. The voters understand federal support payments, but they also want conservation benefits; plus the farmers are willing to provide conservation benefits. With such strong support for agricultural conservation, policymakers should triple conservation spending in the next farm bill," Grossi pointed out. "The programs are there, and they work. It's just a question of putting some financial muscle into mak- ing conservation happen." And for Susan Butler and hundreds of farmers and ranchers like her, much hangs on the drive and dedication of their advocates: "You know, all across the United States there are farmers like us who are valued and cherished by their communities. But we need help to keep providing the environmental products people want along with our straw- berries and blueberries and pumpkins:' cm Stay tuned for Part 2 on the farm bill in the next American Farmland, and watch www.f&uAand.org/ policy /index.htm for updates. Betsy Garside is director of communications at AFT Places Are Protected By Wonderful People IEREMY GREEN join with other wonderful people and become a member of AFI"s Farmland Leadership Circle with a gift of $1,000 or more. Help save a nonrenewable resource, stop sprawl, and ensure fresh and local food for generations to come. Name: Address: ❑ $1,000 Farmland Leadership Circle ❑ $2,500 Farmland Patron Circle ❑ $5,000 Farmland Benefactor Circle ❑ Other $ To make a gift using appreciated securities, please call Nancy Enzler Rehman at 202 - 331 -7300, ext. 3038. Send your tax - deductible gift made payable to AMERICAN FARMLAND TRusT 1200 18th Street, NW, #800 Washington, DC 20036 AMERICAN FARMLAND FALL 2001 17 7oot)s of tie 7rade AFT services help communities build a frameworb for local farmland protection. By Jill Schwartz The conversation was inevitable. With homes replacing barns and silos, cyclists becoming a more common site than tractors on backcountry roads, and tourists taking the seats once "reserved" for farmers in local diners, it was just a matter of time before Connie Wood and her friends began talking about the need to save farmland in Saratoga County, New York. Talking about it was the easy part. Wood and her compan- ions have either grown up on a Saratoga County farm, are cur- rently farming there or are working for a farming organization. They are intimately familiar with the myriad benefits —eco- nomic, environmental and cultural —of farming. The hard part was figuring out what to do about it. They knew they needed to get non - farmers on their side and to con- vince the county's elected officials to create a farmland protec- tion program. Their main interest was creating a program that paid farmers to permanently protect their land, such as a pur- chase of development rights (PDR) program to acquire agri- 18 cultural conservation easements. But since lobbying for issues is not part of their daily routine, the process seemed intimidat- ing and overwhelming. Fortunately, there are "tools" available to help communities protect their farmland; tools such as surveys, maps, workshops and research reports, just to name a few. And American Farmland Trust is where they can be found. AFT is continual- ly creating new services that help communities raise awareness about land protection and develop well- rounded land protec- tion programs. AFT also helps individuals develop farm man- agement and land stewardship strategies. With 20 years of experience working with farmers and ranchers, elected offi- cials, land trusts and others, AFT knows which tools are most effective. "Even though land use issues vary so much from one region of the country to the next, there are tried and true methods for saving and managing agricultural land that can be customized AMERICAN FARMLAND FALL 2001 to meet the needs of different communi- ties," said AFT Assistant Vice President for Programs Bob Wagner, a 16 -year employee of the organization. "And these are methods that start at the grass- roots level, with people who are usually new to the land protection movement." One of the most effective techniques is Cost of Community Services studies, which drive home the economic benefits of agricultural land. These studies pro- vide a snapshot in time of current rev- enue and expenditures on a land use basis. They typically demonstrate that farmers pay more in revenue than they demand in public services. In other words, if you develop farmland into typ- ical residential housing, a community's taxes will have to rise. Also compelling are computer - generated maps that dra- matically illustrate how much agricultur- al land will be lost if sprawling develop- ment is allowed to continue, and data - rich profiles that paint a picture of the local agricultural industry. In Saratoga County, the dilemma was citizens not understanding the value of farming in their community. One of the first techniques used was: breakfast! But this was a breakfast unlike any other in the county. Held at a local dairy farm, not only did visitors receive a hearty breakfast for a few bucks —made with eggs, strawberries and other food pro- duced locally —they also had the oppor- tunity to tour the farm and hear presen- tations from AFT, Cooperative Extension and others. For many of the visitors, it was a first -time opportunity to find out where their food comes from and what kinds of programs are available for protecting farmland. "So many people who came walked up to me before leaving and told me what an amazing experience it was," said Wood, who hosts more than a dozen tours for school children at her farm every year. "They said they learned a lot and had fun." Almost 1,000 people —twice as many as were expected— attended the first breakfast. Now in its sixth year, the event attracts approximately 3,500 people a year. Any profits go into a fund used for agricultural promotion and farmland protection activities in the county. The core group that plans the event is still a dozen or so people. But it now takes almost 150 volunteers to help set up, run and tear down the event. Cornell Cooperative Extension covers the cost of the mail- ings and provides staff assistance on an in -kind basis. A local food chain, Stewarts, supplies food at a discounted rate. And AFT is there to make a presentation on farmland protec- tion techniques. "I taught high school for 12 years and, during that time, I realized that kids do not understand where their food comes from," said Wood, whose family has owned farmland in the county since the mid 1800s. "I knew we had to get them onto the farm. When I met a few other people who thought the same thing, and then saw a flyer about some farm breakfasts being done in the Midwest, we got the idea to do the breakfast here." The timing could not have been bet- ter. AFT had been hired by the county a few months earlier to develop a farmland protection strategy and to educate the general public about the need for the strategy. So, when AFT Northeast Project Specialist Teri Ptacek heard about the breakfast idea, she offered to help out with the event. She and Wood realized that it would be a mutually ben- eficial working relationship. Ptacek and others in AFT's Northeast Regional Office, which is based in Saratoga, have been providing Wood and her peers with technical assistance, guidance and moral support since the pre - breakfast days. It's all paying off. There's more sup- port for farmland protection in the county. For example, the county recently hired a full-time agricultural economic development specialist that it shares with neighboring Washington County. With the help of AFT, one of the towns 29 in the county has _created a conservation term easement program (reduces prop- erty taxes in exchange for an easement for a set period of time), another created a PDR program, and seven towns adopt- ed right -to -farm laws. In her own town, Wood is making progress as a town supervisor spreading the word about farmland protection. These successes are the result of a combination of factors — including AFT's expertise and com- mitment to the county, Wood said. "The presentations made by AFT at the breakfasts are always great," said Wood. "So was the farmland protection plan AFT wrote. With AFT, the issue of farmland protection is always brought up in a subtle, non - argumentative way. It's very important to work with that type of organization:' A different —but equally effective — approach is being taken in Oconee County, Georgia. Like Saratoga, this is a county with deep roots in agriculture that is experiencing growing pains. Located approximately one hour from Atlanta and a few minutes from Athens, it is in one of the fastest growing corri- dors of the state. The loss of farmland is obvious to anybody who has lived in the county for even just a few years. But lit- tle was done to slow it down until Charlie Meek, Oconee River Resource Conservation & Development (RC &D) Council coordinator, and his peers began brainstorming a few years ago about what they could do. They talked about it over lunch. They talked about it with their bosses. AMERICAN FARMLAND FALL 2001 19 30 They talked about it with AFT. They talked about it with their board mem- bers. Before long, they had enough sup- port to form the Oconee County Partnership for Farmland Protection in 1999. The partnership includes the local Chamber of Commerce, Soil and Water Conservation District, Farm Service Agency, RC &D Council, Cooperative Extension and the J. Phil Campbell Sr. Natural Resource Conservation Center. Their first move was to send a survey to 275 of the county's landowners. The RC &D Council picked up the tab. It was a three- question survey that asked the landowners whether they support the need for a voluntary farmland protection program (72 percent said they strongly support it), whether they would support the use of federal, state, local and private funds to pay for the program (51 percent said they strongly support this) and why they think farmland is important (the top answer was "sustainability for agricul- ture"). "We did the survey because we want- ed to see how the landowners thought about the topic of farmland protection," Meek said. "We thought that we had not yet shown that this is an issue a lot of people care about. The survey helped us with that. It helped us lay the foundation. Now we are building on it:' Since then, the partnership has creat- ed a mission statement and hosted two workshops for the general public. AFT arranged for Wayne McGinnis, a Baltimore County, Md. farmer and recip- ient of AFT's annual Steward of the Land Award, to speak at one workshop. McGinnis spoke about why he protected his farm and his experience in chairing the state's PDR board. The other work- shop featured an AFT staffer who spoke about national trends in farmland protec- tion. "We decided to bring in AFT because we like the organization's research and publications," Meek said. "They are objective. AFT just states the facts. In the long run, that helps us gain credibility." AFT's Southeast Regional Office continues to provide valuable guidance and technical assistance to the 20 county, he said. As a result of the workshops, the county commissioners are more open to the partnership's goal of creating a vol- untary program to protect farmland. Also, a second survey is in the works and the partnership is working with several other entities, including AFT, to plan a statewide farmland and open space con- ference in Oconee County on October 27. Members of the partnership are being invited to neighboring counties to give tips on how to get started and they are making trips to the state capital to promote the idea of a statewide farmland Community activists: Top - Charlie Meek in Georgia. Bottom -John Holloway with son, Matthew, in Wisconsin. protection program. It is one of the most successful farmland protection partner- ships in Georgia. "It has turned into much more work than we ever dreamed of," Meek said. "We had hoped that somebody else would carry the torch by now. That hasn't happened, but we are not going to give up. Our philosophy is that we can- not give up. We have to at least give it our best try." Not surprisingly, what drives Wood, Meek and others who are volunteering their time to save land in their communi- ties is a passion for farms and farming. Without that, none of the tools they use at the grassroots level would be effective. John Holloway knows this. He is working almost single - handedly to get a PDR program started in his hometown of Paris, Wisconsin, which is located in an area ranked by AFT as the nation's third most threatened agricultural region. It helps that he is the chairman of the township's planning commission. That gives him direct access to the peo- ple in the township who make land use recommendations. He has been feeding them farmland protection articles for nearly 10 years. It helps, too, that he comes from a family of activists. As he watched his father fight for agricultural zoning in the township years ago, he learned the value of being patient. But what keeps him motivated is his love of the land. "I have lived here all my life and I know that this is the only option for us right now," said Holloway. "I believe in what I am doing, which makes it easier to convince farmers that this is the right thing to do." Holloway is working with AFT's Upper Midwest Regional Office to pro- mote PDR. He has invited Ed Minihan, the office's regional director, to the town- ship to make several presentations. And he has brought several township officials to Dunn Township, Wisconsin, to learn how the state's first PDR program was created. The program was created under the leadership of Minihan, who also is a township supervisor. Holloway is in the process of raising funds to hire AFT to help the township create a PDR pro- gram. "I wish Ed Minihan was our town- ship chairman," said Holloway. "But since I know we cannot have him, it's at least good to know AFT is there to help us." Cq For information on AF7's consulting services, call Fill Schwartz, director of marketing, at (202) 331 -7300, ext. 3011 or e-mailjschwartz@farmland.org. 31. larmland report Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space Since 1990 & Deborah Bowers, Editor FARMLAND PROTECTION HIT House farm bill blasted; Senate takes turn WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House rejected an amendment to the $170 billion farm bill Oct. 4 that would have directed $400 mil- lion annually to farmland preservation. Funding for the program in the House bill stands at $50 million a year for 10 years. The Senate could increase that amount when it debates its version this month. The White House said The Farm Se- curity Act of 2001 passed by the House continues an undesirable commodity price support policy and is too expensive in light of the nation's changed circumstances fol- lowing the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. In the 226 -200 vote rejecting the con- servation amendment, members from states with commodity giants such as corn and cotton temporarily derailed conservation and environmental groups pushing hard for dynamic change in farm support policy. The Senate, which earlier in the month was waiting until spring to begin work on the farm bill, has now gotten underway on its version. The Farmland Protection Pro- gram is expected to be part of the bill's con- servation title and will likely be introduced at more than $50 million per year. The Bush administration blasted the farm bill just prior to the vote, in turn anger (Continued on page 2) `Agricultural zoning hot topic at conference BALTIMORE, MD — Preserving farmland through effective agricultural zoning and other regulations was the topic of a confer- ence in Baltimore in early September, or- ganized by The Ohio State University, Swank Program in Rural -Urban Policy. The two -day national conference, ti- tled "Protecting Farmland at the Fringe: Do Regulations Work ?" attracted more than 100 professionals from farmland protection programs, academia and the private sector. At least two presenters focused on (Continued on page 3) Volume 12, Number 1 October 2001 Ag zoning, PDR pair up in Berks ................ 4 Right to farm in most densely populated state 4 Virginia county likely to enact PDR ...............5 NewsBriefs . . ........ ............................... 6 Book Review: The Regional City .................7 Bowers Farmland Preservation Report is published 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $185 includes index and hotline service. Editorial and Publishing, Inc. circulation offices: goo LaGrange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 • (410) 692 -2708 - ISSN: 1050 -6373. Q2001 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or forwarding of this material electronically without permission from the publisher Is prohibited. 32 Page 2 farmland preservation report (Farm bill, continued from page 1) ing GOP leaders who said the administra- tion had given no previous input on the bill. The White House budget office said the House farm bill fails to help smaller opera- tions, encourages overproduction, continues a policy of surpluses and "boosts federal spending at a time of uncertainty." Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Ve- neman testified before the Senate Agricul- ture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee in September on a report released by her de- partment that clearly views farm crop subsi- dies as obsolete, and supported objectives in the conservation bill the House had rejected. Conservation policy, the department report said, must include "stewardship in- centives on working farmland or retirement of environmentally sensitive land to respond to Americans' growing expectations about agriculture's role in promoting and protect- ing environmental quality." The rejected amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ron Kind, D -Wis., would have shifted about $2 billion annually from tradi- tional commodity payments to voluntary conservation programs, which would have increased conservation spending to more than $5 billion a year. The amendment had 140 co- sponsors. It was supported by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which included such organizations as American Farmland Trust. In addition to the largest farinland preservation boost ever proposed, it would have committed $75 million a year for forest land easements. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair- man Torn Harkin, D -Iowa, and Ranking Re- publican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, re- leased a joint set of objectives for the farm bill in September that included strong sup- port for conservation programs, renewable energy and quality of life in rural communi- ties, and other objectives that clearly indi- cate a shift in farm policy goals. October 2001 Lugar said the farm bill needed to fo- cus on conservation, rural development, a strong nutrition safety net, income assur- ance, trade, credit for beginning farmers, home -grown biomass energy, cutting edge research, and well managed forestry. That Lugar and Harkin together repre- sent a bipartisan agreement on policy changes in the farm bill, and that they both hail from Midwest states is no small factor in the outcome of the legislation that most affects how agriculture functions in the economy and affects the environment. "Sen. Harkin and Sen. Lugar are very interested in land conservation," said Russ Shay of the Land Trust Alliance, speaking before the annual national land conservation conference last month in Baltimore. "It's just lucky they are from states where there are a lot of corn and soybeans. They are fiscally conservative, but what they will try to do is drop the numbers, but put more of those dollars in conservation." But Lugar and Harkin are not entirely lone rangers to the commodity world when they champion conservation subsidies. Hog, cattle and poultry producers receive no di- rect subsidies, and, are facing new and ex- pensive clean-air and clean-water standards estimated to cost more than $12 billion over the next 10 years to meet. Conservation in the farm bill began in 1985 when farmers were first required to practice conservation to qualify for crop subsidies. The farm bills of the 1990s saw programs for wetlands, increased spending for the Conservation Reserve Program and the introduction of the Farmland Protection Program in 1996. The 2002 farm bill passed by the House, the White House said, would "continue to direct the greatest share of re- sources to those least in need of government assistance." Recent payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms while more October 2001 farmland preservation report than half of all U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments. Proponents of shifting from crop subsidies to conserva- tion rewards say the move would more evenly distribute farm bill dollars. CONFERENCE: TRENDS IN REGULATIONS Economist: (Progress of programs difficult to gauge (Conference, continued from page 1) providing ample doses of skepticism about the ways farmland loss is measured and in- terpreted, and whether government inter- vention is appropriate. Washington State University professor Paul W. Barkley focused on the philosophi- cal problems as well as the pragmatic diffi- culties of protecting farmland in urbanizing . regions, answering the question, "why do we save land, farms and agriculture." USDA Economic Research Service economist Ralph Heimlich said divergent opinions in the farmland protection field about goals and objectives for preservation leave agricultural economists with little to go by as they attempt to measure the pro- gress of protection programs. Heimlich pointed out that "the pattern of the landscape and the interactions of the various elements in it may be more impor- tant to our perceptions of the "goodness" or "badness" of land use problems than any- thing that results in significant market ef- fects from aggregates such as land or hous- ing price, land conversion, or construction." Heimlich's distressed conclusion was that "conclusions based on economics alone will be inconclusive." Heimlich, whose past research claimed fewer farmland acres lost than Page 3 other, non - government studies showed, and who has claimed federal assistance is un- needed, said protection advocates "have yet to agree on exactly what sprawl is," and therefore cannot find common ground on how to curb it. "The whole land use discussion we're having is very confusing. People who are allies are not necessarily looking to achieve the same thing," Heimlich said in an inter- view. "It comes back to the question of what we're trying to achieve — farming ac- tivity or affordable housing ?" Achieve ag zoning by testing assump- tions, knowing local land sales Agricultural zoning was the topic of four presentations, all of which demon- strated renewed interest and activity in zon- ing as a primary protection of farmland. Farmland Preservation Report pub- lisher Deborah Bowers reported on recent downzonings in Maryland that were accom- plished, she said, because zoning changes were preceded by studies that convinced landowners that fears of lost equity in land were unfounded, at least in the subject lo- calities. Baltimore and Calvert Counties sig- nificantly decreased allowed density in agri- cultural areas in the last three.years. Bowers showed highlights of the land sales data and research that "disproved long - standing assumptions about the rela- tionship between density and land sales profits." Downzoning could become a trend in Maryland, she said, because of recent policy directions by the state's land protection pro- grams that look to assign funding priority to localities with more restrictive zoning. Bowers said downzoning has become increasingly important in recent years as lo- calities using purchase of development (Continued on page d) 33 34 Page 4 (Conference, continued from page 3) farmland preservation report rights have invested ever larger sums of money in easements, and now acknowledge they are jeopardizing their investments with zoning that permits incompatible levels of development surrounding preserved areas. She highlighted particularly permissive ag- ricultural zones in Harford and Carroll Counties in Maryland, both of which have committed among the nation's highest lev- els of monetary investment in PDR. Bowers urged participants to "test assumptions" about land values in relation to allowed den- sity as a means of pursuing better agricul- tural zoning. Illinois contingent calls agricultural zoning attainable Mark Cordes of the Northern Illinois University School of Law, outlined the legal restraints of agricultural zoning and the im- pact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island. He argued that although Palazzolo "provides addi- tional protection for property owners, agri- cultural zoning should still rarely constitute an unconstitutional taking." Cordes said that although agricultural zoning has the potential to impose a dispro- portionate burden on affected landowners, "agricultural zoning is not inherently unfair. Yes, it may be that you are losing value, but so are your neighbors. Property rights have a limited nature. Property has never been absolute." Cordes, who lives in Dekalb County, Ill., said in an interview that farmers in Dekalb support agricultural zoning, because adjacent DuPage County "lost the war, and Dekalb is where the line has to be drawn." J. Dixon Esseks and Lela Long of Northein Illinois University outlined their recent study on the political acceptability of agricultural zoning. Their survey of agricul- October 2001 tural zone actions nationwide showed cer- tain circumstances enabled agricultural zon- ing to occur, including the understanding that zoning is not permanent, that is, farm- ers whose land is nearest to development activity can make a case for conversion at some point; profitability of local farming is important, to preclude the idea that a tak- ings case may be justified; many farmers need to believe that agricultural zoning comes with benefits, the most obvious being avoiding conflicts with new non -farm neighbors; and last, Esseks and Long found that in many cases where agricultural zon- ing was enacted, farmers that opposed it were outvoted by residents seeking to hold down taxes and protect rural landscapes. Ag zoning, PDR pair up in Berks County Clyde A.B. Meyers, extension agent for Berks County, Pa., demonstrated that recent agricultural zoning initiatives are not confined to Maryland. Presenting the county's policies and activities along with Berks County planner Cheryl Auchenbach, Meyers outlined the county's comprehensive effort to get mu- nicipalities to enact agricultural zoning based on the county's model. As an incen- tive, the county pays the costs associated with amending ordinances. Under the county's Agriculture Zon- ing Incentive Program (AZIP) standards, developed in 1997, municipalities that par- ticipate are required to restrict density through a choice of zoning methods, includ- ing fixed -area based, large lot and sliding scale zoning. Prior to 1985, five townships adopted large minimum lot size zoning — a technique that allows a parcel to be divided into buildable lots, but only if those parcels meet a minimum size requirement, such as 40 acres. Since 1985, 14 municipalities have adopted sliding scale zoning, equal to, or, with more restrictive density allowances October 2001 farmland preservation report than the AZIP model. Auchenbach said sliding scale is a popular choice for ag zoning in Berks County because of the level of fragmenta- tion that has occurred, creating a wide mix of parcel sizes. Sliding scale can be de- signed to allow even the smallest parcels to divide at least once. The county provides municipalities with a model agricultural zoning ordinance. According to Meyers, an important and in- novative part of the model is its guidance in setting standards for animal agriculture that can be made compatible with a township's existing residential density. Meyer said the county was working to protect opportunities for large animal agri- culture that would protect communities by setting standards, such as a limit on animal units per acre based on farm size, buffer and site plan standards. Meyer said he believes the county can have both large confinement operations such as hog farms and still pro- tect the enviroiunent, quality of life in the county and the sustainability of agriculture. Berks County has 221,511 acres in farm use, and farm product sales of $247.8 million annually, ranking third in Pennsyl- vania and 901h in the nation. Mushrooms are the largest market value crop in the county, ,.but 52 percent of the market value of prod- ucts sold is livestock, including dairy, hogs and poultry. It ranks fifth in the state for hog production, a point on which Meyer and county officials are keenly aware. Berks began preserving farmland through easement purchase in 1989, with inauguration of the state program. In 1999, Berks County Commissioners gave the county's farmland preservation effort a huge boost by floating a $33 million, five - year bond issue, enabling its program, along with state funds, to protect 5,000 acres un- der easement each year, ranking it among the fastest growing programs in the nation. Page 5 Meyers said the county has recognized that agricultural zoning needs to accompany purchase of development rights. "The easement program and agricul- tural zoning really go hand in hand — we feel very strongly about that. We will only do easements in agriculturally zoned town- ships." The program currently has 21,766 acres protected, ranking it in the nation's top 12 counties, and projects that by the end of the bond monies in 2004, it will preserve about 43,000 acres. Private property, "public resource" In a talk on private property rights in connection with resource protection, Peggy Kirk Hall, director of Agricultural and Rural Law at The Ohio State University, said pri- vate property concepts are "very fluid, and affected by social preferences when consid- ering what is an acceptable level of in- fringement." Nationally, there are no perimeters by which to project a trend in property rights law, she said, and pointed out by example that in Ohio many localities exempt agricul- tural land from zoning, but that in many . other places "we are beginning to see farm- land as a public resource because of farm- land preservation programs." In addition to agricultural protection zoning, right -to -farm laws were a major topic at the conference. Right to farm in New Jersey Soji Adelaja, dean and director of re- search at the New Jersey Agricultural Ex- periment Station at Rutgers University, pre- sented the difficulties of implementing right -to -farm policies and laws in New Jer- sey, which saw two- thirds of its farmland vanish between 1950 and 2000. With 840,000 farm acres remaining, New Jer- (Continued on page 6) 35 3� Page 6 farmland preservation report Right to Farm in New Jersey (Continued from page 5) sey's farmland values are the highest in the nation, and land continues to appreciate at twice the treasury bill rate. Adelaja outlined the difficulty of protecting farmers from nuisance complaints in a densely inhabited state. "Where people are interested in preservation, they are not interested in right- to- farin. It is the farm community that makes right -to -farm happen, whereas it is a combination of farm and nonfarm constituents that make preservation hap- pen," he said. The result is the public will support right -to- farm to get farmland preservation, "but the law will be weak." Adelaja's research showed that communities with higher income were more supportive of farmland preservation and less likely to support right -to -farm, but where farmers had more political clout, right -to -farm ordinances with teeth had a better chance of passage. Right to farm legislation at the local level typically pro- vides breaks for farmers when it comes to government actions such as tax exemptions in annexations, and an explicitly stated right to engage in normal farming practices that include activi- ties some nonfarm neighbors might claim are a nuisance. Larry Libby, co -chair of the conference organizing com- mittee and Swank Professor in Rural -Urban Policy at The Ohio State University, said he believes there will be another similar conference in about three years, again, focusing on one category of farmland protection techniques. Virginia county may get P ®R WILLIAMSBURG, VA— James City County, which encom- passes major tourist attractions including Colonial Williams- burg and other important historic sites, will consider a pur- chase of development rights program in November, accord- ing to planner Ben Thompson. "We do believe it will be approved ... we're using this to protect rural lands, whether agricultural or forestal." The pro- gram has already been budgeted at $1 million and a program manager has been hired. "We took other jurisdictions in Virginia — Loudoun, Albemarle and Virginia Beach and brainstormed. We took the components most appropriate for our community." Contact: Michael Drewry at 757 259 -3110. October 2001 news briefs In Connecticut ... The State Bond Commission, chaired by Gov. John Rowland, approved easements on four farms totaling 560 acres, at a cost of $2.089 million. The state now has 27,928 acres preserved on 186 farms. In California ... Two neighboring jurisdictions outside San Diego are fighting over conflicts in their growth plans, affecting thousands of acres of farmland. At the LTA ... Land Trust Alliance Executive Director Jean Hocker is stepping down after 14 years lead- ing the nation's only organization serving the needs of land trusts. Hocker said she will take a "sabbatical" and at some point re- turn to the field in some capacity to foster continued growth in land conservation. She was honored by 1400 attendees at the organization's recent annual rally in Baltimore. The LTA recently reported that lo- cal and regional land trusts have protected 6,479,672 acres of open space as of Dec. 31, 2000. That is a 241 percent increase over the 1.9 million acres protected as of 1990. National land trusts have protected millions of acres as well. A record 1,263 local and regional land trusts were in operation in 2000, a 42 per- cent increase over the number (887) that existed in 1990. In Maryland ... Since a new in- come tax credit for donated ease- ments took effect July 1, the Mary- land Environmental Trust has re- ceived four donations equaling 570 acres. The new incentive allows a $5000 per year credit up to $80,000 over 15 years. Frederick County officials have approved a point system and other features of a proposed installment purchase program expected to go to public hearing before the end of the year, It would be the fifth Maryland County using installment purchases. In Virginia ... Loudoun County is working to implement its updated comprehensive plan, which calls for October 2001 farmland preservation report Page 7 Book Review downzoning 227.000 acres from a 3 -acre minimum lot size zone into two zones, one area to be a 1:20 area -based allocation with option to cluster at 1:10, and the other a 1:50 area based allocation with option to cluster at 1:20. The county will hire a consultant to rewrite the zoning ordinance and produce mapping. Land- owner support is widespread, according to Kendra Briechle of the Dept. of Building & Develop- ment, with two large groups of landowners petitioning to be downzoned as well, but too late in the process to include them. The zoning changes may not oc- cur until next summer. County officials have stated they cannot guarantee development proposals submitted before then will be grandfathered. In Indiana ... Elkhart County has created a tax increment fi- nance (TIF) district to use reve- nues to purchase temporary re- strictions on farmland, the closest an Indiana locality has come to a farmland protection program. The state has no program. The Nature Conservancy has put up a $2.5 million match for a CREP enhancement program, . targeting the Tippecanoe water- shed for permanent water quality easements. In Illinois ... A survey con- ducted by the Northern Illinois FUniversity for the American Farmland Trust shows over- whelming concern in the Mid- west about loss of farmland. More than half of respondents in the Midwest said they favor fed- eral assistance for farmland pro- tection, the highest percentage of any region in the nation. Kane County has earmarked $5 million this year from royal- ties from the Grand Victoria ca- sino in Elgin to fund its farmland protection program, the first in the state. The casino cash is ex- pected to reach $15 million for the program over the next five years, protecting about 2,500 acres. The regional city will be great, but mean- while, farmland preservation is essential The Regional Cit)�: Planning for the End of Sprawl by Peter Calthorpe and William Fulton. 14,'ashington, D.C.: Island Press, 2001, 304 pages, paper, $35. Reviewer/ by Toni Daniels Contributing Editor Four out of every five Americans live in a metropolitan region. These regions produce about one - quarter of the nation's agricultural output, in- cluding most of the fruits and vegetables. Suburban sprawl has long been the bane of farmland preservationists. Whether it takes the form of arterial commercial strips, residential subdivisions, office parks, or McMansions on 5 -acre lots, farmland is taken out of production, probably forever. "We can't save our farms unless we save our cities," declared former Michigan Farm Bureau President Jack Laurie. And he's right. One of the causes of sprawl has been the decline of many of America's major cities and the exodus to the ever - expanding suburbs. Even in the booming Sun Belt, much of the new growth is happening in the suburbs and ex -urbs. It is often said that Americans hate two things: sprawl and density. The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl brings hope and proof that good urban design and suburban re- development can create medium- to high - density places where Americans want to live. The authors, noted New Urbanist architect Peter Calthorpe and planning consultant and journalist William Fulton, make a strong argument in favor of walkable, human - scale, mixed -use, transit - oriented development with public spaces. If applied, these guiding principles can transform metro sprawl into effi- cient, attractive, and globally competitive regional cities. The authors offer case studies including Portland, Seattle, and Salt Lake City, and nearly 50 pages of color drawings to illustrate actual development and re- development projects in cities and suburbs. Calthorpe and Fulton recognize the importance of farmland preservation in helping to structure and limit the size of the regional city. But they dis- cuss only the King County, Washington farmland preservation program where 12,000 acres were preserved in the 1980s. Since then, rapid growth in greater Seattle has turned many of the preserved farms into rural estates for executives of the new Information Economy. Here, the authors, both Californians, reveal their West Coast bias. Dozens of counties and munici- palities on the East Coast are successfully using the purchase of develop- ment rights combined with land use regulation to direct growth. Calthorpe and Fulton emphasize the importance of greenbelts, urban growth boundaries, and urban service boundaries. Yet they duck the tough political issue of how to put them into place. While it is essential to create well- designed, livable cities and suburbs, ultimately people will return to live in those places only when pushing farther into the countryside is no longer an option. That's why farmland preservation techniques and poli- cies will continue to be urgent and essential. Tom Daniels is author of "When City and Country Collide. " 37 38 Page 8 farmland preservation report professional resources ... Positions Available The Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy (NC), Lands Program Di- rector - Regional land trust working to conserve important lands in the mountains of western North Carolina and east Tennessee seeks a full -time Lands Program Director, Qualifications: Understanding of the mechanics of voluntary land protec- tion techniques, related tax issues, stewardship issues, availability of funding sources, and other financial considerations. Previous real estate, negotiating, and land trust experience preferred; Strong verbal and written communication skills; Fundraising skills, including grant writing; Persistence, sense of humor, and entre- preneurial spirit, Oriented toward real - estate and negotiating skills than conserva- tion planning / GIS skills. For a complete job description, e-mail: sahccarl @ioa. com. Salary: Commensurate with experience. Medical insurance provided. Retire- ment plan offered. Send resume, cover letter and three references by Nov.1 to Carl Silverstein, Executive Director, The Southern Appalachian Highlands Conser- vancy, 34 Wall St., Suite 802, Asheville, NC, 28801 or via e-mail: sahecarl @ioa. com. Fax (828) 253 -1248. (posted 1015101) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (CA), Real Property Special- ist — $45,005 - $57,716 yearly. Manage rental properties, lease negotiation, title research, appraisal analysis. Knowledge of principles/ practices of property man- agement and negotiation, legal documents pertaining to leases and real property; budget preparation and administration, familiarity with federal, state, local laws, codes and regulations, proficient in MS Office, bachelor's degree with work in real estate, real estate law, business administration or related field and three years of experience in real estate or property management with a public agency or land trust desirable; valid CA drivers license required. Applications and resume in by 5 p.m. Oct. 19 to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Al- tos, CA 94022. Applications and information may be obtained at www.openspace. org, by e -mail request to gison@openspace.org or by calling (650) 691 -1200. In- formation being submitted by e-mail should be in Word format. EOE /ADA. (posted 9126101) Land Foundation of McHenry County (IL), Executive Director — The LFMC is a 12- year-old land trust dedicated to the conservation and preservation of open lands. We are seeking an experienced and motivated individual to help us grow from an all- volunteer operation. Responsibilities will include fundraising, commu- nity outreach, easement negotiation, and administration of the LFMC's initial of- fice. The ideal candidate should have a history of successful fundraising for non- profit endeavors, demonstrate excellent communication skills, and desire to pre- serve the scenic character of McHenry County. This position will require exten- sive contact with public officials in individual meetings and group forums. Experi- ence in drafting and negotiating easements or contracts is also desirable. Base sal- ary $32 -37K, commensurate with experience, plus benefits. Submit resume to: Personnel Committee, Land Foundation of McHenry, P.O. Box 352, Woodstock, IL 60098. Open until filled. (posted 9126101) Publication Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land, USDA Economic Research Service Report describes the forces driving development, its character and impacts on agriculture and rural communities, the means available to channel and control growth, and the pros and cons of potential federal roles. Provides detailed, docu- mented, objective evidence culled from the literature and from original analyses. Available on the ERS website, ers.usda.gov, or obtain a printed copy by calling 800- 999 -6779. Ask for order number ERS -AER -803. October 2001 Conferences Nov. 13, 14, Harrisburg, PA: Rural Summit in the City, sponsored by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania. Agriculture and land use are among the themes to be discussed, includ- ing farm transfers and new farmers, rural land use and its future, eco- nomic impact of agriculture. Call 717 787 -9555 or email info @ruralpa.org. Copyright Notice It is unlawful to reproduce this publication and distribute it to other locations or agencies. If you have a special need, please con- tact the publisher. Farmland Preservation HOTLINE 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, friendlier and smarter than the web! How to Contact Us Phone — 410 692 -2708 — Fax 410 692 -9741 E -Mail — Bowerspub@hotmail.com U.S. Mail Bowers Publishing, Inc. 900 LaGrange Rd. Street, MD 21154 roars of big combines would fall on deaf ears under a proposal that would establish lialf -mile agricul- ture zones around farms to shield them from nuisance complaints by their urban neighbors, some of whom might be annoyed by the smells, sights and sound of farming. As Chatham has grown more ur- ban, the county has been fielding more calls from new residents com- plaining about flies and smells that often accompany tasks such as cleaning out chicken coops. Under the proposed agriculture' zones, farmers who opt tn,be includ- ed in these districts would have their land identified as such at the Register of Deeds office, ,rhat way, potential homebuyers or develop- ers would be warned in advance that the area they are eyeing is a SEE ZONING, PACE 413 ' Tommy Emerson, a lifelong Chatham County resident and former, is helping to draft a proposed ordinance to create agricultural districts to protect forms from homeowners and developers. ZONING CONII^JIJED FP.Cai PAGE 1 B farming enclave. Many farmers, including Tommy Emerson, a beef cattle owner and Siler City resident, think the zones would encourage good relations between farmers and their future neighbors while protecting farming interests in the face of steadv ur- banization. Emerson also is chair- man of the county's agricultural advisor.v committee, which is devel- oping the zone rules. "As the county receives pnpula- tion pressure from urban counties adjacent to us, we can see the po- tential for more and more disputes arising from people not familiar with agriculture," Emerson said. "liopefuily, this will curtail some of the probleills." Supporters CA th(I 'LoneS also hope. they will give farming — still an integral part of the county's ec-on- orny anti culture -- a sense of iden- tity and will encourage its growth. Not all farms would be eligible for STAFF PHOTO BY HARRY LYNCH inclusion in the proposed agricul- ture zones. The rules are designed to protect larger, working farms. For instance, farms that sell orna- mental plants would have to oper- ate on at least five acres that pro - duce at least $1,004 a year in income, Farmers with traditional crops or animals would have to have at least 10 acres, and timber farms would have to be at least 20 acres. While other Triangle counties have seen steep declines in farm- land, Chatham — largely because of the popularity of alternative fam) ing — has had a .t percent increase in farms between 1493 and 1007, according; to the i'.S. Census. The county's estimated 1150 farms account for 40 percent of Chatham's net income. But the county also has had tremendous population growth - 27 percent during the past decade. Land that used to he open space is now horne to new residential devel- opments. Nearly t,000 housing per- mits have been issued in Chatham since August. 2000, and some newcomers are hound to be from larger cities and unaccuslor'ied to rural environments, Chatham's proposed agriculture zones are not unique. r't least 40 other counties in Nort.h;,arolina have (hem, including Durham and Orange, In Wake County, 1,500 sur- veys have been sent to farmers to gauge their interest in such dis- tricts, said Rick Bailey, a soil and water conservation district achnin- istrator. Bailey thinks Wake farm- ers will endorse the idea. "Farming communities likr to establish an identity that, they may not have right now," he said. Chatham Countycommissiuners are set to vote on the proposal to establish the zones nest month. Many in the farming community are urging approval. "People that want to st; yengaged in farming will hopefully have this prolective barrier here," said Paul McCoy, director of the Chatham County Farm Bureau. "I think it's worthwhile." Staff writer Slephoon Harris can be reached at 432 -2015 or sharris imewsobserveccom 39 Christina Moon - Chatham VAD Ordinance Page 1 `ft From: Sam Groce <sam_groce @ncsu.edu> To: <cmoon @co.orange.nc.us> Date: 10/8/01 1:50PM Subject: Chatham VAD Ordinance Samuel E. Groce Agricultural Extension Agent, Livestock & Forages, Field Crops, Pesticide Coordinator North Carolina State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Chatham County Center Post Office Box 279 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 E -mail: sam_groce @ncsu.edu Homepage: http :l /www.ces.ncsu.edu /chatham/ Phone: 919.542.8202 FAX: 919.542.8249 CHATHAM COUNTY FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM ORDINANCE ARTICLE I TITLE An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, entitled, "FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM ORDINANCE." ARTICLE II AUTHORITY The articles and sections of this program are adopted pursuant to authority conferred by the Farmland Preservation Enabling Act, Article 61, Chapter 106 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. ARTICLE III PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to promote agricultural values and the general welfare of Chatham County and more specifically, increase identity and pride in the agricultural community and its way of life; and increase protection from nuisance suits and other negative impacts on properly managed farms. ARTICLE IV DEFINITIONS The following are defined for purposes of this ordinance: Advisory Board: Chatham County Agricultural Advisory Board. Chair: Chair of the Chatham County Agricultural Advisory Board. District: Voluntary Agricultural District. Board of Commissioners: Chatham County Board of Commissioners. ARTICLE V AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD A. Creation An Agricultural Advisory Board is hereby established to implement the provisions of this ordinance. 42 B. Membership The Advisory Board shall consist of not less than fifteen (15) members appointed by the Board of Commissioners. C. Membership Requirements Each member shall be a Chatham County resident. 2. A member shall be actively engaged in farming, agribusiness, or a representative of agricultural interests. 3. Each voluntary agricultural region established hereunder shall be represented by at least one member. 4. The Board of Commissioners shall consider recommendations as to prospective members, if any, of the Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors, the Chatham County committee of the U.S. Farm Service Agency, and the Chatham County office of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and others involved in agriculture or interested in the purposes of this ordinance. D. Tenure Each member shall serve a term of three (3) years except that the initial Board shall consist of 5 members who shall serve a term of one (1) year; 5 members who shall serve a term of two (2) years; and 5 members who shall serve a term of three (3) years. Thereafter all appointments shall be for terms of three (3) years notwithstanding the above limits. District representatives may be appointed and re- appointed as necessary to assure representation as required by (3) above. E. Vacancies Any vacancy on the Board is to be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term. F. Removal Any member of the Advisory Board may be removed by the Board of Commissioners for cause. G. Advisory Board Procedure The Advisory Board shall develop procedures for the conduct of its meetings consistent with Robert's Rules of Order. It shall meet at least annually and at such other times as the Advisory Board shall provide in its rules or upon the request of a majority of its members. H. Duties The Advisory Board shall: 43 1. Review and approve the form of the agreement to sustain agriculture required by N.C.G,S. §106 -738. 2. Hold public hearings with the Board of Commissioners on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations; 3. Advise the Board of Commissioners on projects, programs, or issues affecting the agricultural economy or way of life within Chatham County; 4, Review and make recommendations concerning proposed amendments to this ordinance; 5. Help formulate a countywide farmland protection plan as defined in N.C.G.S. § 106- 744 (e) (1) for presentation to the Board of Commissioners; 6. Study additional methods of farmland preservation and make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners; 7. Review and approve applications for qualifying farmland certifications and make recommendations concerning the establishment and modification of voluntary agricultural districts; 8. Perform other agriculturally related tasks or duties assigned by the Board of Commissioners. ARTICLE VI CERTIFICATION AS QUALIFYING FARMLAND A. Requirements In order to secure certification as qualifying farmland real property must: 1. be participating in the farm present- use -value taxation program established by N.C.G.S. §105 -277.2 through §105 -277.7 or is otherwise determined by the County to meet all of the qualifications this program set forth in N.C.G.S. § 105- 277.3; or 2. be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) of the United States Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which at least two- thirds of the land is composed of soils that: 3 a. (i) Are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops; (ii) Have good soil qualities; (iii) Are favorable for all major crops common to Chatham County; (iv) Have a favorable growing season; and (v) Receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields for an average of eight out of ten years; or b. be one on which at least two- thirds of the land has been actively used in agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations as defined by N.C.G.S. § 105 -277.2 (1),(2), and (3) during each of the five previous years, measured from the date on which the determination must be made as to whether the land in question qualifies; 3. be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, in accordance with the Natural Resource Conservation Service defined erosion - control practices that are addressed to said highly- erodible land; and 4. be the subject of a conservation agreement, as defined in N.C,G.S. §121 -35, between the county and the owner of such land that prohibits non -farm use or development of such land for a period of at least ten years, except for the creation of not more than three lots that meet applicable county zoning and subdivision regulations. ARTICLE VII CREATION OF VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS A. Creation An agricultural district created pursuant to this Ordinance shall: 1. Consist of at least 20 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or 2. Consist of at least two or more certified qualifying farms which are one mile or less from each other and contain not less than 20 acres in the aggregate. B. Regions Agricultural districts created hereunder shall be grouped for purposes of administration into four geographic regions as follows: districts lying North of US 64 and East of NC 87 shall be in the Northeast Region; districts South of US 64 and east of NC 87 shall be in the Southeast Region; districts South of US 64 and west of NC 87 shall be in the Southwest Region; and districts North of US 64 and west of NC 87 shall be in the Northwest Region. El 45 C. Education Chatham County may take such action as it deems appropriate through the Advisory Board or other entities or individuals to encourage the formation of the districts and to further their purposes and objectives, including the implementation of a public information program to reasonably inform landowners of the agricultural district program. D. Addition and Withdrawal Qualifying farmland which is contiguous to an existing district may be added to the district as herein provided. 2. In the event that one or more farms in a district withdraws and the remaining acreage in the district is less than the minimum acreage required or results in the remaining land being noncontiguous, the voluntary agricultural district will continue to exist so long as there is at least one qualifying farm. ARTICLE VIII APPLICATION, APPROVAL, AND APPEAL PROCEDURE A. Application Procedure The owner of a farm seeking to qualify for participation in the programs authorized hereunder shall submit an application to the County. The application for certification as a qualifying farm may be made at the same time as a request for designation in a voluntary agricultural district is made. In order to benefit from the programs authorized by this ordinance, a farm must be certified as a qualifying farm by the Advisory Board and designated as a Voluntary Agricultural District. B. Approval Process 1. An application for qualifying farm certification and voluntary agricultural district designation shall be made to Chatham County on forms reviewed by the Advisory Board. 2. Once an application is determined to be complete, it will be submitted to the Advisory Board for its review. Within 60 days thereafter the Advisory Board will render a decision regarding qualifying farm certification and a recommendation regarding voluntary agricultural district designation. An applicant shall be notified of the decision regarding qualifying farm certification and the recommendation for designation as a voluntary agricultural district. Denial of an application for qualifying farm certification may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners within 30 days of receipt of the decision of the Advisory Board. M 4. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Advisory Board, the Board of Commissioners shall consider an application for the creation of a voluntary agricultural district or the inclusion of qualifying farmland to an existing district. 5. Upon approval of the Board of Commissioners the voluntary agricultural district shall become effective upon registration of the conservation agreement to sustain agriculture prepared in accordance with Article VII, Section A(4) hereof in the Chatham County Register of Deeds. The Chatham County Tax Assessor shall be notified and the location of the district shall be reflected on the County's tax maps to the extent practicable. 6. By written notice to the County, an owner of qualifying farmland may revoke the conservation agreement. Violation of the terms of the conservation agreement may result in its revocation by Chatham County. Such revocation shall result in loss of qualifying farm status and loss of eligibility to participate in a district and the benefits thereof. Notice of such revocation shall be recorded in the Chatham County Register of Deeds. ARTICLE IX PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Purpose No state or local public agency or governmental unit may formally initiate any action to condemn any interest in qualifying farmland within a district until such agency or unit has requested the Advisory Board to hold a public hearing on the proposed condemnation. B. Procedure 1. Within ten (10) business days of receiving a request, the Advisory Board shall publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in Chatham County describing the proposed action and giving notice of a public hearing thereon to be held within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request. 2. The Advisory Board shall consider, in making its findings and recommendations following the public hearing, such factors as: a. Whether the need for the project has been satisfactorily established by the agency or unit of government involved, including a review of any fiscal impact analysis conducted by the agency involved; and b. Whether there are alternatives to the proposed action that have less impact and are less disruptive to the agricultural activities of the District within which the proposed action is to take place. C 47 The Advisory Board may consult with the County Agricultural Extension Agent, the Natural Resources Conservation Service District Conservationist, and any other individuals, agencies, or organizations deemed by the Advisory Board to be necessary for its review of the proposed action. 4. Within thirty (30) days following the date of the public hearing of the request, the Advisory Board shall make a report containing its findings and recommendations regarding the proposed action. 5. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §106 -740, the proposed condemnor shall not formally initiate a condemnation action while the proposed condemnation is properly before the Advisory Board within these time limits. ARTICLE X NOTIFICATION OF PROXIMITY TO A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT A Record Notice of Proximity to Voluntaa Agricultural District Procedure Upon certification as qualifying farmland and designation of real property as a Voluntary Agricultural District, the Chatham County Land Records System shall be changed to the extent reasonably practicable to include a notice reasonably calculated to alert a person researching the title of a particular tract that such tract is located within one (1) mile of a voluntary agricultural district. 2. Limit of Liability In no event shall the County or any of its officers, employees, or agents be held liable in damages for any misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance occurring in good faith in connection with the duties or obligations imposed by this ordinance. 3. No Cause of Action In no event shall any cause of action arise out of the failure of a person researching the title of a particular tract to report to any person the proximity of the tract to a qualifying farm or voluntary agricultural district as defined in this ordinance. B. Si is e 1. Signs identifying voluntary agricultural districts may be placed along the rights -of- way of major roads that pass through or next to those districts. rx 8 2. Notice of the establishment of voluntary agricultural districts and their purposes shall be posted conspicuously in appropriate County offices including the Register of Deeds, Planning Department, and Tax Assessor and at such other places as directed by the Board of Commissioners. To the extent practicable maps locating the voluntary agricultural districts shall also be made available in appropriate County offices. ARTICLE XI WAIVER OF WATER AND SEWER ASSESSMENTS A. No Connection Owners of qualifying fauns within a voluntary agricultural district shall not be required to connect to County water or sewer systems. B. Abeyance Water and sewer assessments shall be held in abeyance, without interest, for qualifying farms within an agricultural district until improvements on such property are connected to the water or sewer system for which the assessment was made. C. Termination of Abeyance When the period of abeyance ends, the assessment is payable in accordance with the tenns set out in the assessment resolution. D. Suspension of Statute of Limitations Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that any assessment is held in abeyance without interest. E. Other Statutory Abeyance Procedures Nothing in this section is intended to diminish the authority of the County to hold assessments in abeyance under N.C.G.S. §153A -201. Assessment procedures followed under Article 9 of N.C.G.S. §153A shall conform to the terms of this ordinance with respect to qualifying farms that entered into conservation agreements while such ordinance was in effect. F. Conflict with Water and/or Sewer System Construction and Improvements Grants To the extent that this Article conflicts with the terms of any federal, state, or other grants for the construction of County water or sewer systems, this Article shall not apply. 8 49 ARTICLE XII LAND USE DEVELOPMENT A. Purpose. In order to prevent conflicts between voluntary agricultural districts, farm owners, and nearby non - farmer landowners, land use decisions shall consider the purposes of this ordinance and the proximity of voluntary agricultural districts to any proposed development. B. Report. The Advisory Board shall report at least annually to the Board of Commissioners on the status, progress, and activities of the County's fann preservation program including the County's voluntary agricultural district program. ARTICLE XIII CONSULTATION AND AGENCY NOTICE A. Consultation. The Advisory Board may consult with the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service office, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and with any other individual, agency, or organization the Advisory Board deems necessary to the proper conduct of its business. B. Notice to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services A copy of this ordinance shall be sent to the Office of the North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services after adoption. At least annually the county shall submit a written report to the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services on the County's farmland preservation program, which may include the following voluntary agricultural district information: 1. Number of landowners enrolled; 2. Number of acres enrolled; 3. Number of acres certified during the reporting period; 4. Number of acres denied during the reporting period; Copies of any amendments to the ordinance; and 6. Any other information the Advisory Board deems useful. ARTICLE XIV LEGAL PROVISIONS If any article, section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason found invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Adopted this the day of , 2001. I' ATTEST: CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY ATTORNEY 10 COUNTY OF CHATHAM 51 CONNECTING FARMS & CITIES Can farms and cities live happily ever after? An AFT conference says yes. By Valerie Berton hirty years ago, farmers in and around Dane County, Wisconsin, began trucking fruit, vegetables and meat to a new farmers' market that offered them access to an affluent urban population in the capital of Madison. In the decades that followed, more and more residents came, sales soared, and today the market is touted as one of the country's best. On an average Saturday, about 300 vendors provide goods to close to 18,000 people. The farmers earn much - needed capital, while city residents enjoy, literally, the flavors of the country. "The people of Dane County care about preserving our quality of life in light of a growing population and urban sprawl," says Kathleen Falk, the executive of Dane County, which is in the area ranked by American Farmland Trust as the nation's third most threatened agricultural region. Falk was elected on a "slow growth" platform and is the creator of the county's ambitious "Farms and Neighborhoods" program that combines initiatives to both protect farmland and reinvigorate the city of Madison. "One of the most important parts of our good quality of life are our neat villages surrounded by productive farmland," says Falk. "We want to keep it that way." Across Lake Michigan, the city of Grand Rapids and sur- rounding jurisdictions in the Grand Valley are seeking to emu- late some of Dane County's initiatives to protect. Michigan farmland —and revive the city at the same time. The "Fruit Ridge," an apple - growing region warmed by a micro - climate, makes for productive farmland. But those same hills and val- leys that produce winning apples also appeal to city residents who have the financial resources to build mansions on former farmland. The challenge for Grand Valley officials is to realize their vision of urban areas and countryside peacefully co- existing. Their "United Growth for Kent County" project aims to do just that by improving economic opportunities for farmers, adopting regional growth management strategies to protect farmland and revitalizing Grand Rapids. Planners in these two areas of the country are working to achieve a type of symbiotic relationship that strengthens both city and country. Their work thus far demonstrates that both a vibrant city and a thriving bloc of farmland can co- exist —and be mutually beneficial— within 10 miles of each other. This type of farm -city connection, as well as others, will be explored in American Farmland Trust's national "Farming on the Edge: Conservation, Community and Commerce" conference set for November 12 -14 in St. Charles, Illinois: The conference will offer a variety of model programs to consider, and will include dozens of sessions featuring successful strategies and proven tools to stop sprawl, rebuild cities and strengthen agriculture. "We need to integrate agriculture into our increasingly urban society," says Julia Freedgood, director of AFT's Farmland Advisory Services, and a conference planner. "The way to do this is through land use policies that not only protect urban-edge agriculture, but that revitalize cities as well. If we do it right, with an environment that supports both a rural cul- ture and a city that offers diverse occupations for people, then both will flourish." Two years ago, AFT forged a partnership with the U.S. Conference of Mayors to work on this goal of simultaneously protecting farmland and revitalizing cities —each in support of the other. "We recognize the vital link between the health of our cities and conservation of the working lands that-surround and sup- port them," says AFT President Ralph Grossi. To aid in the process, the partnership began holding "farm - city forums" around the country; four have been held thus far: Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Charlotte, North Carolina; Rochester, New York; and a session at the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual meeting in Detroit in late June. Additional forums are planned in Idaho and Washington state. Attendees include mayors, county officials, farm leaders and conservation/envi- ronmental leaders. FOR DANE COUNTY FARMERS, having Madison residents inter- ested in locally produced food is a godsend. The farmers' mar- ket gives them significant cash — thousands of dollars changes hands each week —and provides ample opportunity to promote other direct marketing strategies such as selling to restaurants and community supported agriculture (CSA). CSA farms sell seasonal shares to "members" who join their farms in exchange for weekly portions of the harvest and other benefits. The farmers' market also is an opportunity for them to pro- 18 AMERICAN FARMLAND SUMMER 2001 Z a d �z The busy Dane County Farmers' Market thrives in it's down- town Madison location. mote the benefits of buying and eating local food. For most city residents across the U.S., food travels more than 1,500 miles before it reaches their tables, consuming energy, send- ing extra gases airborne and, in many cases, yielding produce picked hard and ripened in a truck. "After years and years of struggling, it's advantageous to know that someone nearby will buy your produce at a premi- um," says Bill Warner, a Dane County vegetable and flower producer who co- manages the thriving Madison market with his wife, Judy Hageman. "People are getting separated from their food, and this is bringing people back closer to it." Dane County planners and politicians made creating eco- nomic opportunities for farmers a major plank in their plan to protect farmland. They recently created a small grant pro- gram to fund farmers' good ideas to make their operations more profitable. Also, they are opening another farmers' mar- ket in an economically struggling neighborhood in Madison to connect a long list of farmers waiting for market booths with residents seeking a regular supply of fresh produce. Equally important, the Dane Farms and Neighborhoods program sets its sights on creating more livable urban com- munities in hopes that people will choose to live there rather than in sprawling "ranchettes" on large expanses of former farmland. The plan defines "healthy cities" as municipalities that use land efficiently, maintain their unique identities and avoid developing farmland. Planners hope to improve city neighborhoods and create places where people can walk, bike or take public transportation to work, shops or recreation. To make it happen, the county funded a new program that fosters community "in -fill" development (wherein gaps are filled in in urban areas) with planning grants. Community plans range from building a new downtown library and com- munity center to reconnecting struggling neighborhoods to the vibrant state capital area: The fledgling United Growth for Kent County (Mich.) program also seeks to elevate land use issues in the public consciousness to protect a unique fruit- growing region while rebuilding a strong urban core. . "Our idea was to preserve farmland, natural resources and promote urban revitalization at the same time," says Kendra Gunter, project coordinator for the program. "If we want to do this, we have to make it profitable. to farm:' The United Growth program is guided by two commit- tees, one focusing on rural issues, the other on Grand Rapids revitalization. On the rural side, county officials hired a new extension agent specializing in adding value to farm products. In the Grand Valley, the main farm product is apples, so the agent is working with farmers to produce and promote great - tasting applesauce and cider. Other county leaders have begun promoting the "Fruit Ridge" area as a tourist destina- tion, complete with biking trails and visits to buffalo farms. "We're working with growers to explore new product development or tourism to help increase their profitability and prevent them from selling their land," says Gunter, who sees huge potential in playing up the tourist opportunities in a picturesque area just 20 miles outside Michigan's second biggest city. The urban committee, on the other hand, is discussing ways to improve inner -city neighborhoods. Their efforts dovetail with a vision created by the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council in the early 1990s dubbed the "Blueprint" that makes smart growth a priority. The Blueprint calls for both livable centers in the city and green - way corridors outside that include working farms. "The city plan is starting to consider its relationship to the region; we benefit tremendously by being near this vegetable and fruit- growing area" says Jay Hoekstra, a senior planner with the Metro Council. "We need to retain population growth so we don't endanger our farmland" With the visioning complete, city and county leaders are trying to draft and enact a regional land use plan, a real chal- lenge in Michigan, a state with a strong township structure that doesn't emphasize regionalism. With collaboration among the three largest jurisdictions —Grand Rapids, Kent County and Ottawa County— planners hope to emerge with a regional framework for local planning that improves rural AMERICAN FARMLAND SUMMER 2001 19 JJ centers while protecting the farmland upon which they depend for local food, says Andy Bowman, Metro Council planning director. SUCH UNIQUE STRATEGIES, indeed the very theme of AFT's conference, will provide an opportunity for a much -need- ed national dialogue, says Fred Kirschenmann,. a North Dakota farmer and executive director of the Leopold Center, a research center promoting sus- tainable agriculture in Iowa and beyond. Kirscheamann, who will deliver one of the conference keynote addresses, stress- es that protecting farmland near cities is not only a good idea., but also a way to retain medium- and small-sized family farms. "Without such farmers, we lose the ability to enjoy the most environmen- tal and social benefits," he says. "Ecologists say the only way to man- age natural systems is to have people on the ground knowing how to manage them," he continues. "Farms are ecologi- cal systems, and how to manage them from an ecological perspective can only be determined by people who live there Fred Kirschenmann, executive director of the Leopold Center, will speak at AFT's national conference. Photo by Bob Elbert, courtesy of Successful Farming. long enough" Moreover, offering city residents both fresh fruit and access to farms preserves a strong rural culture that is threatened. "It makes more sense to have teenagers gath- er around a garden raising vegetables than a street corner doing drugs," he says. The conference may help catalyze both communities and federal policy - makers to consider the importance of farmland to thriving urban areas. "The conversion and fragmentation of farmland is the most significant, defin- ing characteristic of urban - influenced agriculture," says Ed Thompson, AFT's senior vice president for public policy. "There is no better way to protect that agriculture than to make it a priority of farm policy to save productive farmland and improve the environment in those areas where Americans most often encounter agriculture." (_q For information on the confer- ence, "Farming on the Edge: Conservation, Community & Com- merce,"go to www.farmland.org and look for the button. Valerie Berton works for the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. In cooperation with AFT and Kane Learn how agriculture and an' County, Illinois: increasingly urban environ- American Planning Association Campaign for Sensible Growth _ meet can COm lenient each p Environmental Protection Agency other, benefiting both land Illinois Farm Bureau The Izaak Walton League of America and people. AFT's national National Association of Counties National Governors Association conference wi ll. offer insights Center for Best Practices and inspiration, tech - Openlands Project C.William Swank Program for Rural- proven niques and successful strate- Urban Policy, The Ohio State University es to save land, stop s ravel Trust for Public Land and strengthen agriculture. US Conference of Mayors USDA Forest Service USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy For information, contact Doris Mittasch at (413) 586 -9330 or e-mail dmittasch@farmland.org. 20 AMERICAN FARMLAND SUMMER 4001