Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 061902COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: June 11, 2002 Re: June 19 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for: Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2597) by the Tuesday before the meeting, if you will be unable to attend. Copies: Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Mike Lanier, Ag Economic Development Specialist SOLO Lu �L AGENDA COUNTY OF; QRANCE . '' AGRCCULTURAL PR�S�F�V.ATION 'BOARD PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER Conference Room 306 Revere Road HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Wednesday, June 19, 2002 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 — April 17 7:55 07 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Agricultural Business Options (Attachment 1) b. Federal Farm Bill — Farmland Protection Program (Attachment 2) (page 20) c. VFPP Ordinance Revisions — Revised Draft (Attachment 3) (page 30) d. "Orange County 250" (Attachment 4) (page 43 -44) e. New Voluntary Agricultural Districts 8:55 6 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Farmland Preservation Report b. Agriculture In The Balance 2002 9:00 6. ADJOURNMENT 02 DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD April 17, 2002 PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Elizabeth Walters, Tony Kleese, Rodney Recor, Noah Ranells, Marty Mandell (late arrival), Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, Preservation Planner Tina Moon, and Carol Melton. ABSENT: Bob Strayhorn, Louise Tate ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Morrow called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., thanked everyone for coming and asked if anyone had new additions or items for consideration to add to the agenda. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2002 MOTION: Kleese made motion to approve the Feb 20th, 2002 minutes with one noted correction. Seconded by Ranells. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Annual Chair and Vice Chair Elections Morrow called for nominations. Stancil read a proxy nomination submitted in writing by Mandell. The nomination slated Tony Kleese as Chair because of his involvement in education, production and the marketing of farm products and, Noah Ranells for Vice -Chair because of his involvement in small -farm production and work with value -added products. After brief discussion of duties, both agreed to the nominations. As there were no other nominations, Morrow closed the nominations. MOTION: Recor motioned to nominate Kleese for Chair. Seconded by Ranells. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Recor motioned to nominate Ranells for Vice - Chair. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. 03 b. Voluntary Agricultural District Application -Don Johnson Farm Stancil reviewed the application and supporting materials for the Johnson Voluntary Agricultural District Application. Staff recommended that the 10 -acre tract (TMBL #5.12..15A) be excluded from the VAD since it is not contiguous with the larger acreage. It was noted that the other two contiguous parcels totaled 160 acres and met the criteria for a Voluntary Agricultural District. MOTION: Walters motioned approval of the Johnson VAD application and to be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for establishment of a VAD. Seconded by Ranells. VOTE: Unanimous C. Recommendation on Triangle GreenPrint Stancil reviewed the February 25th presentation on the Triangle GreenPrint Report. The APB supports Greenprint's effort to coordinate regional open space planning across the Triangle After discussion the members decided to forward a memo to the BOCC including the following concerns: 1. The Greenprint should be developed using a broad set of agricultural stakeholders to develop priorities for farmland preservation. We suggest using Agricultural Preservation Boards where they exist (Orange, Durham and Chatham counties all have boards), as well as other organized agricultural support groups to identify critical farmland areas. From our understanding of the process to date, only a few representatives or a limited number of groups have been involved in the identification of these areas. 2. There is a need to develop common definitions and criteria for the categories of land in the Greenprint, and to identify lands of regional value with enough specificity to enable voluntary protection and preservation of specific critical lands when opportunities arise. The existing Greenprint document is somewhat vague in its identification of these areas for farmland and forestland, and the definitions and criteria for farmland and forestland are not clear. 3. We concur with the goal of the Greenprint to encourage each County to become aware of critical areas and to take steps to protect such areas as they deem appropriate. However, future mechanisms or recommendations from the Greenprint should not work to diminish any individual county's own efforts to be proactive in identifying and protecting these sites — as some counties (like Orange) already have active and successful programs toward this end. 2 A MOTION: Kleese moved to forward the recommendation as noted above to the BOCC. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. d. Voluntary Agricultural District Application — Lee Miller Farm (this item moved from Discussion by vote as noted) MOTION: Morrow motioned to add the Lee Miller Farm VAD application to the agenda as a decision item. Seconded by Mandell. VOTE: Unanimous. After a staff review of the application materials the board voted to consider the application for Voluntary Agricultural District status. MOTION: Walters motioned to designate the Lee Miller farm for a VAD and forward to the BOCC. Seconded by Ranells VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #5: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. VFPPO Update — Draft Stancil noted that staff has worked to explore potential changes to the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program, originally enacted in 1992, as per previous APB discussions in March. In recent years many changes have occurred in VFPPOs and the status of farming, warranting revisiting the ordinance. Staff has reviewed the ordinances from other jurisdictions, the new model ordinance, and comments from the APB meetings to develop a draft `straw' set of initial suggestions for changes to the program. These suggestions were outlined in the agenda packet. It was noted that Section IV- membership requirements would be considered after we see what the agricultural priority areas look like and the districts are finalized. The members discussed including a ninth duty to Section D- Duties, as per the State Model Ordinance, to develop a countywide farmland preservation plan as defined in NCGS § 106- 744(e)(1) for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. The need for a map that shows a farmland priority areas was noted as a high priority. Other topics discussed included, possible number of participating VADs, priority areas and possible district definitions, how membership could be affected with more VAD participants, setting up the program to encourage new VADs without enlarging the board membership beyond a reasonable number. A reply from the county attorney on the application form and the Agricultural Conservation Agreement was distributed as a handout. Due to the hour, this discussion was deferred to the next meeting. 05 b. Capital Investment Plan (CIP) 2002 -2012 /Lands Legacy Stancil reviewed the proposed CIP regarding the Lands legacy Fund. Other boards and groups have expressed that some of the bond monies listed in 2004/05 and 2005/06 ought to be moved into 2003/04 because opportunities might be lost. There have been speakers from four groups at the last two public hearings. There was concern expressed about there not being an agricultural service center in the county by Ranells. Stancil noted that the intention was to move ERCD, Planning and Environmental Health to Government Service Center area, giving Cooperative Extension the current building with a Farmer's market. C. Orange County 250th Celebration This item deferred until the May meeting. e. Items for next agenda Farmland Preservation Ordinance, 250th celebration, ideas of a joint upper Neuse Basin Durham - Orange counties preservation board Conservation Easement Workshop. ITEM #5: Adjournment The APB adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 117 ATTACHMENT 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 28, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Agri- business DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1) Approach /Status Report Craig Benedict Planning Director ext. 2592 2) Bonafide Farm Accessory Use Brochure Dianne Reid EDC Director ext. 2326 3) Classifying Agri- business based on intensity Tina Moon Planner II ext. 2583 4) Existing /Proposed Use Matrix TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Chapel Hill Durham Mebane 732 -8181 968-4501 688 -7331 336 - 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To receive input from the Board on ways to facilitate agri- business in the county. BACKGROUND: Agri- businesses are becoming an increasingly important component to the survival of our local farming community. A `Reba and Roses' application for SUP extension of their history property /non residential use this February brought forth the need to reexamine the existing zoning categories that do not easily comport to today's hybrid business activities. In an effort to better accommodate agri- business and other non - traditional forms of agriculture Planning, Economic Development, and Farm Agency staff have been working together to examine, and where appropriate, revise county regulations regarding farm related uses. Discussion topics have included the following: • Developing a more straightforward and defendable definition of bonafide farm • Evaluating our current permitted land uses and accessory uses for bonafide farms • Identifying uses that are not allowed per our present ordinance but may be appropriate • Considering the needs of smaller operations -5 -20 acres in size • Addressing facilities that process and /or sell agricultural products, which may or may not be produced on site • Allowing operations which are agricultural in character but not true agriculture • Determining where such special agricultural operations and facilities are best suited. Planning staff is preparing a matrix to show permitted land uses linked to agriculture and uses accessory to bonafide farms. The matrix should serve as a starting point to identify gaps. The next step would be to determine how best to fill those gaps within the context of our existing policies and regulations. Since the May Quarterly Public Hearing has a short agenda there may be the time for a possible work session with the Board to review the group's progress and ask for direction regarding this important topic. GAComprehensive Planning Div \TMoon \Planning \Ag Business\ 5- 2002WorksessionAbstract.dot1 4� IS 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact is associated with this discussion. RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning staff requests direction from the Board regarding new ways to support agriculture and agricultural - related businesses (agri- business) in the county. G; \Comprehensive Planning Div \TMoon \Planning \Ag B us! ness \5- 2002Worksessi on Abstract. d ot2 3 (1 9 NEW WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR RURAL ECONOMY Three-part approach 1. Evaluate agricultural - related land uses in our existing ordinance (Matrix) • Consider need, location, and permitting process • Combine similar uses into categories to allow for future (unforeseen) uses ■ Consider changing name of the existing "agricultural service" floating zone to 'agricultural industrial" and create new agricultural service category to address services for farmers (i.e. veterinarians, farm machinery repair) • Better advertise the potential for these uses • Improve interdepartmental cooperation to ease permitting process 2. Streamline the bonafide farm accessory use process (Brochure) 3. Consider new options for small and medium scale operations that are agricultural in character not directly linked to a specific farm, or are cooperatives (Matrix) • Identify potential uses • Create permitting procedures based on the intensity of the use, subject to performance standards Progress Report & Next Steps ✓ Interdepartmental group develops brochure showing new approach for processing bonafide farm accessory uses. (Completed February 2002.) ✓ Interdepartmental agricultural business group discusses ways to support our rural economy. (Completed spring 2002.) ✓ Agricultural Economic Developer prepares "wish list" for agricultural operations. (Completed spring 2002.) • Planning staff prepares matrix showing existing land uses linked to agriculture. (Completed spring 2002.) • Planning staff develops new land use categories based on "wish list" and places them in matrix as proposed uses. (Completed spring 2002.) ✓ Ag business group presents materials to BOCC for comments and direction. (May 28, 2002 worksession.) 1. Ag business group discusses BOCC comments and revises materials as appropriate. 2. Agricultural Preservation Board and Planning Board reviews proposed agricultural uses and potential links to zoning ordinance. 3. Ag business group meets with existing local agri- business owners to discuss proposals. 4. Ag business group submits status report to BOCC and revises materials as appropriate. 5. Planning Department prepares amendments to County regulations. Considering a new farm - related operation? Five easy steps can get you on your way. For more information contact: Karen McAdams, Cooperative Extension Office 245 -2058 Royce Hardin, Cooperative Extension Office 245 -2062 Agriculture & Planning Center • 306E Revere Road • Hillsborough, NC 27278 Gail Hughes, Soil & Water Conservation 245 -2753 Agriculture & Planning Center a.. 306D Revere Road • Hillsborough, NC 27278 Tina Moon, Planning & Inspections 245 -2583 Agriculture & Planning Center • 306F Revere Road • Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dianne Reid, Economic Development Commission 245 -2325 Economic Development Commission • 110 E King Street • Hillsborough, NC 27278 11 ,.` Verify Farm Status North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 153 -A -340 and Section 1.5 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance specifically exempt "bonafide farms" (and farm related structures) from zoning regulations and some NC State Building Code requirements. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance defines a bonafide farm* as, "the use of land for farming meeting one of the following criteria: 1. Composing two or more acres on one or more tracts owned or leased by the bonafide farm unit; 2. Average annual sales of $1,000 for the preceding three years; or a minimum of twenty [acres] of forest land for which a management plan has been prepared." *The State of North Carolina qualifications for the farm use tax are different from the Orange County definition of a bonafide farm. ❑ Be able to document your farm status with copies of annual receipts or a copy of Schedule F of your Federal tax return. 2 Develop a plan Consider agricultural operations that would complement your farm. The operation should be subsidiary or accessory to the farm. Examples of operations considered "accessory" found in the Piedmont area include but are not limited to the following: ■ Retail sales of products grown on the farm such as fruits and vegetables ■ Pick - your -own fruits and vegetables ■ Retail sales of nursery and greenhouse crops • Processing and marketing farm grown products such as milk, ice cream, canned goods and wine ■ Agri- tourism operations such as corn mazes, hayrides and horse trail rides Work with your local farm agencies, Cooperative Extension and Soil and Water, and the Economic Development Director to develop a plan and determine all necessary local, state and federal regulations. Do you need a waste management permit? What about a larger septic field? Who will run the operation? Do you need to construct new buildings or can you use existing structures? Your farm agency representative will help you answer these questions and coordinate the planning process. If you have a unique or a large -scale proposal, your farm agency representative will review your plan with Planning staff and /or the Economic Development Director to ensure that it will be considered "accessory" before you get too far in the planning stage. ❑ Some uses, such as bed and breakfast inns or stables, may require separate land use permits. Some uses may not be allowed in protected watersheds. Get a letter Once you have a plan, ask your farm agency representative to prepare a formal letter describing your proposal. The 'letter should summarize your plan and outline all the local, state and federal regulations that apply to your project. The letter also should clearly state that the proposed use is subsidiary to the main farm use, in other words the site will not become industrial or commercial in nature. tlR Satisfy agricultural requirements Complete any remaining permitting and /or management plan requirements as outlined in the letter. You should have copies of letters or permits from all appropriate county, state and federal agencies. Get County permits Go to the Planning & Inspections Department and bring the following key items: (a) Documentation of bonafide farm status; (b) A copy of 'a tax map showing property (available at Land Records in Government Services Center) and A copy of a survey of the property or plat (available at Register of Deeds in the GSC for $3.00) with the sketched location of any new or existing buildings linked to the operation; (c) Copy of the formal letter from local farm agency personnel; (d) Any additional documentation as specified in formal letter such as a septic permit; (e) Building permit application and /or Erosion Control permit application. Planning Staff will create a file documenting your new operation as an "accessory use to your farm." This information will be available to answer questions from new neighbors or others questioning the legitimacy of your business. It will also provide invaluable data about successful agricultural uses in the county to help us develop better policies for the future. 12 NEW WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR RURAL ECONOMY (Classifying Agri- business based on the intensity of the use) Bonafide Farm Accessory-- Exempt, see brochure Agricultural- Tourism - -Site Plan /ZP (Retail /Tourism– bringing public to rural areas not a specific farm) Sales: ■ Wayside stands, and cooperative stands ■ Seasonal sales: Christmas Trees, pumpkins, orchard sales, specialty fruits & vegetables, flowers Education: ■ Agricultural education: rural heritage museums, petting zoos, agricultural learning centers Seasonal, or Special Events: ■ Corn maze ■ Hay rides Small -scale Equine - related programs Ag Processing w/ Retail —SUP or new Zoning District? (Not accessory to a specific farm —not grown on site, cooperative or neighborhood oriented) • Vineyard/ Winery • Dairy product processing • Special product production (sauces, etc.) • Small -scale meat processing • Small -to medium scale cold storage facilities Farmers' Markets Service —for farmers or rural property owners • Veterinarian — mobile unit or hospital • Farm machinery repair, small engine repair • Landscaping • Grading operations • Retail for farm, forest, horticulture, nursery, or equine related products Agricultural Industrial — (appears to meet intent of Ag Service - floating zone with rezoning) (agricultural service needs for ag community: no retail, no public access) • Large -scale processing, distributing, storage facilities • Cooperative processing • Distribution facilities —hubs • Cold storage facilities • Livestock yards /Meat processing facilities • Grinding /composting facilities or yards • Bio- agricultural industries • Commercial stables Other issues to consider: ➢ Use of EC -5 zoning districts and rural nodes ➢ Environmental issues watershed protection, brownfield reuse ➢ Can some retail tourism be accessory to farm: educational programs and /or equine for extra income ➢ Can service -type uses be accessory to the farm Agricultural Business Options Matrix (Uses are listed and shaded based on the intensity of the permitting requirements - -least difficult to most difficult) Land Use Residential Zoning Districts Nodes/ Existing Commercial - Industrial Permitting Process Existing/ Pro osed Bonafide Farm Accessory Uses AR Ri RB Accessory-See brochure Existing Botanical Gardens & Arboretums AR Ri RB LC1 NC2 Site Plan Existing Greenhouses, no on- premise sales AR, R1, RB, (existing AS NC2, EC5 Site Plan Existing Class I Kennel AR, R1, RB, (existing AS Site Plan Existing Garden Center LC1 NC2 Site Plan Existing Farm Equipment Sales EC5 Site Plan Existing Animal Hospitals, Veterinarians EC5 Site Plan Existing Greenhouses, on- premise sales NC2, EC5 Site Plan Existing Stealth Communication Towers (75 or shorter) AR, R1, RB LC1, EC5 Site Plan Existing Rural Guest Establishments (3 rooms or less) AR, R1, RB Site Plan Existing Agricultural Tourism * Sales: • Wayside stands, and cooperative stands • Seasonal sales: Christmas Trees, pumpkins, orchard sales, specialty fruits & vegetables, flowers AR, R1, RB LC1, NC2 Site Plan Proposed Educational: Agricultural education: rural heritage museums, petting zoos, agricultural learning centers Seasonal, or Special Events: • Corn maze Small -Scale Equine - Related Programs AR, R1, RB Site Plan Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments (forthcoming) for proposed new land uses will include performance standards such as: thresholds for the number of patrons /employees associated with the business or lot size, hours of operations, traffic generation, time of year, time of operation, intensity of use. Land Use AR; R1 RB Residential Nodes/ Existing Permitting Process Rural Guest Establishments 4 -8 rooms Existing/ Communication Towers 200. feet or rester : SUP B Zoning Districts Commercial - Industrial AR, R1, RB, LC1, NC2, EC5 Proposed Special Events Under 150 people) • Vineyard/ winery AR RI, RB SUP B :. Existing Cam /Retreat Center AR R1 RB SUP B Existing Class II Kennel/ Riding Stables `AR -AS "* AR, R1, RB, SUP B &Site Plan = ` Existing Communication Towers 199 feet or shorter AR; R1 RB LC1, EC5 SUP B. Existing Rural Guest Establishments 4 -8 rooms ARf R1 Communication Towers 200. feet or rester : SUP B Existing Agricultural Processing/ Retail AR, R1, RB, LC1, NC2, EC5 SUP B Proposed • Vineyard/ winery (existing AS) SUP. A :. • Dairy product processing more rooms & Restaurant • Special product production (sauces, etc.) Animal Hospitals,: Veterinarians `AR -AS "* • Small -Scale meat processing Rezonin &Site Plan = ` Existin ■ Small -to- Medium Scale Cold Storage Facilities AR -AS Rezoning Farmers' Markets AR, R1, RB LC1, NC2 SUP B Proposed Historic Sites Non- Residential /Mixed Use AR R1 RB SUP A Existin Communication Towers 200. feet or rester : AR R1 RB LC1 EC5 SUP A ing. Rural Guest Establishments '(9 or: more -rooms or 4 or AR, Rl SUP. A :. Existing more rooms & Restaurant Animal Hospitals,: Veterinarians `AR -AS "* Rezonin &Site Plan = ` Existin Feed Seed Storage &Processing . g AR -AS Rezoning & Site Plan Existing Includin lar a -scale cold stora a facilities Greenhouses; :on - remise,sales Aft -AS "Rezonin &Site Plan . Existin Commercial Feeder 0 erat.on =. AR =AS Re zonin . . &Site Plan Existin Sawmills AR -AS Rezonin & Site Plan Existin Stoc aids ; ._ ky AR AS :: Rezonin 9 &Site Plan Existin , 9 - in facilities- Includin lar a scale. meat focess . Garden Cente r , .,. AR AS ..,._ .. Rezoning. :& 5ife Plan Existin E ui ment Sales _. a... :.. _ .. AR _ AS Rezoning ite Existin i r aids : Grindin /com 0-sting facilities o ... AR -AS. Rezonin ': &Site. Plan: Pro osed ` Bio -a ncultural and u s tries AR -AS . ;. Rezoning: `' &;Site Plan Pro osed CommerciaF stables :. .: :. AR -AS _; .. - zoni Re n :Site. Plan: Pro osed Lar a -scale rocessin distnbutm story a facilities AR -AS .: .< Rezonin & SUP A Pro sed " AS Agricultural Service is a'floating zoning district available for appropriate uses within the AR zoning district, subject to the rezoning process. Other Ideas: Consider changing existing "agricultural service" to agricultural industrial and create new agricultural service to address services for farmers (i.e. veterinarians, farm machinery repair) New Ag Service Category — (Services for farmers or rural property owners) • Veterinarian — mobile unit or hospital • Farm machinery repair, small engine repair • Landscaping • Grading operations • Retail for farm, forest, horticulture, nursery, or equine related products Existing Zoning Districts: AR Agricultural Residential R1 Rural Residential RB Rural Buffer NC1 Neighborhood Commercial LC1 Local Commercial EC5 Existing Commercial AS Agricultural Service (Rural Activity Nodes) (Rural Activity Nodes) (Commercial activity in existence prior to zoning & not in Node) (Floating zoning district available within AR, subject to the rezoning process) NEW WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR RURAL ECONOMY - Agri- business Proposed New Use Categories and Permitting Requirements based on Intensity Z!'h.�� :arf', ?J -�b7. �,^�! v;k �,,,�..� 4 .Ql'' v� ••�'',- <G . ier, tr, '�r Y^1k� � .J . �,°a. ", ;•et%'`�.: ai.,;;;. :M +:V �,•yfV0r alrr�� : }v �4xr� d. 41 '7r.'. •Q_•_ �: .f ' � • n ..rr.. _%i:'r.:' J�'nlp'y����� a ,�:� ✓'� ur•.� ;�•r yy�i1 ;dlt- Y f -,'3 ��� z �i .�. ' i� '' n�f�ile� F rr� ..�t` :} .F• ...0 l ':Y :1+.- 3YA.� _ t..'fi- • �� -Tl•.0 :,yr '^ f� "!a, •9 1 �J ii�ir.- .'7.'•{'iy �� y - .JYF._ dT` Ay} .,�•.. '3`�'>✓ �-g[.c - . � '{ ,'.,�,f • n �, � �!s P ccesso ,. y. ,. •ry. yyyy •� ,A) .4F .d ���^ {{��,,P1(��`- i . �. .;� .'�f . �iC. 'f` ., ?' � 1. [ R: C� r "y.�' �r' �'r�J.; ' ' f '+� . �5 m'�i rf aj. "WI?l';':��i�lr �• ..P _ r ;.et` • ,-. •�:y �: ,- � ...,r �A•.t - m��y. ^[rr :$!��+l ..� • f. .•, +1 .. . r,sr... ., �,,.51Y,. .Ji:�v�:42k >- ,'.'�- "*.a Fr, .br ..C. r., +'�'�- 1�i.i`+{��'•4 '�,'.T•`•r� T'eP � vh JY,..� n t'�' ' 2M{i; ' ;?S. S 'w.^ yn;; •L,G "r` y a�ly5� l.t�T�r � _ Sk�� .'i�yi•.. 'T'W - -1,• ^l %'�` :x�rys 5•a':.,, '�f'. �. (� ,�vN �� ��'Y• � > �r � �cu�t�lr `I= � �. � 9�'� in 1- �if•� I nY�� •51' ' �1 .7'i.�:i `'!"v 'V. �+y ffi.0 �,$.,,, .�,e,s ��'x Y -i ,1- r� F..�'&! . ° 7. ''�'e f'��'. � �-.: aL y� Y �+ i ..�� �y( fJ�.'� ,�7�k�''�+'`�• . � -' : �"�s .v;�vt' a4 ri � � - ✓1. '�'ryc �. .y, iro A ' =j`' � t'�' y � Oi 'fir" ..� �'��'�'' �a'S'�Fl� �r'� r 4.� �;'{�"° ,�'' '?' � ,� .>v. *P! M. 4 � i "i - �./r� �'� y7` �"CL � .?. s �r' • �. •�i' ,�hxlv��k: ..F KC��i`17."�.. .�... . +� *.:�:, - - �{� � � � �- ro -.: �y. !.`7.�� _ �t�'°5 's �S^ .. Ji f ``�! 1 i::''x.., ;y, >��;rl +.� �� 'Fa } it -. �� �r ^S ",11� � # .V+V+,r` � .ti '' Cr (� C'••0.. foq r; •.'�"^�( �tl'f.'71 '�'!` �r�3+ C'.'.. +^:. V }:,fJ '$' '.�.r. �w� 'l1•. C v" I � ��� _L. `� �Ir" g �. ��� rr yultur -a --�n� F.a;. `>,1• �n y�C - �. _ 3 .•4' •''Y"•...- :;.F• ` '� �1 .L' •4r+ '` - � r ci' -•r.- �:s+, �''�y r r' ~2: �tshGlt _ - .�""•`�.t'r S. i v a1nS•Y ""' �;t ....'� j4r ,�a 5rN^.ly' ��" l ..c,N . 1*^•" y fx' ! . •,r , r9w; � +�y�r• °�: ~ h •�j'y��j� � � "xs�'yt�[�y� �» 1 '�C�rc!4n ��. L /d.1l:t�tl _ 2r , i'� "'� : r iF �p,;t' fir' � ;�:� ��' �' �- Ff;;' y�.�f �� ��yy .. �. Y ±t.�"'' J W l Ya, 4 �E.' � ti tl1.��hr"'r -`. w?a'.w•C'.Si.- .v�`- •k;w.. .3`+.•kh�. ,+.'{1� ..£ .:l' �.'.� - 't°-5: t� � �.$. -�a'c .;•7� .T�..i p . A t 'F '4. ' i��' ,� > ..� -7R� �� � '1 W ..1. t\ .+A ? .4 f .� � .".r d�... y.•.y � R ~ ,q. ..^ t� ':r `I"�' ' Sri:• �� �ur � � �u t � � ;M ✓. ». o...:•r >r �. J �. i'1`a'� Y•? • ��'`••� - �, '� a„ K -. ';�� � i4 ..�^ rr }+•y- r.'r'� 0.V ` _ � i�'A'- '-fir- '': 5 t.: _ .v. � rr ' U' � � 4 �'A���« � � . t: �,. '1,y -f - ..P.r -1 '�K rY' W_ � .R'- �::�a, ci".C,•. ..... �v....vi �f�? -4 .✓+!. •.cam - � �}e1 '� . -. T. % � �' -Y�.. ...- ,x v .; •i , g _ •� �' RYA 1 fr �P• '�, e a.-,. i."n . F �rri �':T' y - j- c� ur = _ r It r� -. ~ ! �' •�•S�}J Y '9 r6 ; use 1 +1t�'i ��.._'d i.+1 �L }� r �'t.{�. y } ;� « - �� � �� � • 5 1 =7 !!R- It •R' F '1 �� y '� i�: iiF.� .1K ' l i.���e?r:.�� ■ Pick - your -own fruits & vegetables ■ Retail sales for site grown products Processing for site grown products Agri- tourism for site grown products: corn mazes, hay rides Exempt hhh- ppp- Sales: wayside stands cooperative stands & seasonal sales Agricultural education: rural heritage museums, petting zoos, agricultural learning centers Seasonal, or Special Events: corn maze, hay rides Site Plan Review 2 -4 Weeks ■ Veterinarian services ■ Farm machinery repair ■ Landscaping ■ Grading operations ■ Retail for farm, forest, horticulture, nursery, or equine related products Site Plan or Class B SUP 2 Weeks to 2 Months • Vineyard/ Winery • Dairy product processing • Special product production (sauces, etc.) • Small -scale meat processing • Small -to medium scale cold storage facilities ■ Farmers' Markets Class B Special Use Permit 1 -2 Months • Large -scale processing, distributing • Livestock yards/ meat processing • Grinding/ composting facilities • Cold storage facilities Rezoning/ Class A SUP Quarterly Public Hearing 6 -9 Months NEW WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR RURAL ECONOMY -- Agri- business Agri- businesses are becoming an increasingly important component to the survival of our local farming community. In an effort to better accommodate agri- business and other non - traditional forms of agriculture, Planning, Economic Development, and Farm Agency staff have been working together to examine, and where appropriate consider revisions to county regulations regarding farm - related uses. Discussion topics have focused on the following: 1. Streamlining the bonafide farm accessory use process (see brochure in your packet) 2. Evaluating agricultural - related land uses in our existing ordinance (see matrix in your packet) • Combining similar uses into categories to allow for future (unforeseen) uses • Considering changing the name of the existing "agricultural service" floating zone to "agricultural industrial" ■ Creating a new agricultural service category to address services for farmers (veterinarians, farm machinery repair) 3. Identifying uses that are not allowed per our present ordinance but may be appropriate • Considering the needs of smaller operations -5 -20 acres in size • Addressing facilities that process and /or sell agricultural products, which may or may not be produced on site • Allowing operations which are agricultural in character but not true agriculture • Determining where such special agricultural operations and facilities are best suited • Creating permitting procedures based on the intensity of the use, subject to performance standards (thresholds for the number of patrons /employees associated with the business or lot size, hours of operations, traffic generation, time of year, time of operation, intensity of use) Planning staff has prepared a matrix to show permitted land uses linked to agriculture and uses accessory to bonafide farms. The matrix should serve as a starting point to identify gaps. The next step would be to determine how best to fill those gaps within the context of our existing policies and regulations. Planning Staff would like the Board to review the group's progress and provide for direction on ways to facilitate agri- business in the county. 1 Potential Agricultural Uses 1. - Feedlot operations for feeding out beef cows 2. Roadside stands on property not owned by stand operator in high traffic areas 3. Farmers' Markets 4. Value added processing (manufacturing) of agricultural products, examples include: jams; jellies; preserves; pickles; syrups; sauces; bakeries; mills; canneries; tanneries; meat packaging; dairy processing of butter, cheeses, ice cream, etc., extraction and distillation of essential oils from plants; fiber processing; candle, soap, and cosmetic making facilities; processing, packaging, and distribution facilities for medicinal and culinary herbs and other agricultural products; processing a' nd packaging of vegetables and meats; slaughter houses; *and processing and packaging of alcoholic beverages (including wineries) 5. Cold storage facilities for meats, vegetables, and cut flowers 6. Horse boarding (long and short - term), training and event facilities, 7. Distribution centers for agricultural products 8. Farms offering agritourism services 9. Nurseries and garden centers 10. Livestock yards 11. Grinding facilities to make mulch 12. Composting yards for farm and off -farm organic matter 13. Farm supply stores and home sales (including specialty sales, i.e. beekeeping equipment) 14. Sales of agricultural goods and services, including Agricultural Heritage Products, Seasonal Decorative Items 15. Agricultural Heritage museums N16. Bed and Breakfast Inns (and agritourism related) 17..Cooperative processing, packaging, distribution, and storage facilities 18. Restaurants 19. General stores 20. ATTACHMENT #2 N R C S Farm B4111 2002 Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture Program Description Farmland Protection May 2002 Program Overview The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) is a voluntary program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture and prevents conversion of agricultural land to non - agricultural uses. The program provides matching funds to State, Tribal, and local governments and non- governmental organizations with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements. These entities purchase easements from landowners in exchange for a lump sum payment, not to exceed the appraised fair market value of the land's development rights. The easements are for a minimum of 30 years. To date, all easements accepted into the program have been for perpetuity. Authority FPP is authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. FPP is reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill). The Secretary of Agriculture delegated the authority for FPP to the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), who is a vice president of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Scope FPP is available in all 50 States, the Caribbean Area (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), and the Pacific Basin Area (Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). To participate in FPP, NRCS State offices must submit a State FPP plan. How FPP Works The CCC, through MRCS, requests proposals from Federally recognized Indian Tribes, States, units of local government, and non- governmental organizations to cooperate in the acquisition of conservation easements or other interests on farms and ranches. Once an entity is selected, the NRCS State conservationist enters into a cooperative agreement with, and obligates money to, the entity. The entity works with the landowner, processes the easement acquisition, and holds, manages, and enforces the easement. The Federal share of any easement acquisition is limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement. A contingent right interest in the property must be incorporated in each easement deed for the protection of the Federal investment. Eligibility Land. Entire farms or ranches may be enrolled in FPP. The farmland or ranch land must contain at least 50 percent of prime, unique, Statewide, or locally important soil or contain historic or archaeological sites. These lands must also be subject to a pending offer from an eligible entity for the purpose of limiting conversion of the land to non - agricultural uses. Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, grassland, pasture land, and forest land that is part of an agricultural operation. Incidental land that would not otherwise be eligible may be considered eligible as part of a pending offer, if inclusion would significantly augment protection of the associated eligible farm or ranch land. Farms or ranches with historical or archaeological resources must meet the following criteria: • Be listed in the National Register of Historic Places (established under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 USC 470, et seq.); or The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 9 �: L �. ....,. \:_�: \4..., .. , \ \:li',... ..t; .. ........ ,... 1 i..a._ .............. ........,. .. ,u1.. ;5:..........,.I..:.i� \:;',. \.:. ..1':11:•.�:,..:� :�: `. \`.�;.�.::�:':•: \:1:. .. •, . ..: 1:.: \ �, . - �t 1 ` ' \'� .....: \'.':a.,.:�i'i: ::> ::.>:L•i \\: \.:i:.�ll:::l; _:.I.t'.•a`::::.:' „l\.ii \tlu l ..W • Be formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and the Keeper of the National Register in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA); or • Be formally listed in the State or Tribal Register of Historic Places of the SHPO or the Tribal Register of Historic Places. Entity. An eligible entity must be a Federally recognized Indian Tribe, State or local agency (including farmland protection boards or land resource councils established under State law), or a non - governmental organization that: • Is organized principally for the preservation of land for recreation, open space, historical preservation, and natural habitat; • Is operated exclusively for charitable, religious, or educational purposes, with no part of its net earnings paid to any private shareholder or individual and no substantial part of its activities influencing legislation or intervening in any political campaign for or against a candidate for public office; and • Normally receives more than one -third of its support in each tax year from any combination of gifts, grants, contributions, or membership fees, and normally receives not more than one -third of its support in each tax year from the sum of gross investment income. In addition to demonstrating land and entity eligibility, entities wishing to receive FPP funds must demonstrate: • A commitment to long -term conservation of agricultural lands; • The capability to acquire, manage, and enforce easements and other interest in land; • Staff capacity that would be dedicated to monitoring easement stewardship; and • The availability of funds for at least 50 percent of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement; or funds for at least 25 percent of the value when accompanied by a landowner's donation of up to 25 percent of the appraised fair market value. Defining a Pending Offer A pending offer is a written bid, contract, commitment, or option extended to a landowner by an eligible entity to acquire a conservation easement or other interest in land to limit non - agricultural uses of the land before. the legal title to these rights has been conveyed. Pending offers must be for the primary purpose of protecting topsoil by limiting conversion to non - agricultural uses. Pending offers with signed appraisals by state certified appraisers shall receive higher funding priority by the NRCS State conservationist. Applications Process The FPP application process consists of the following steps: 1. A landowner submits an application to an eligible non - governmental organization or State, Tribal, or local government that has an existing farmland protection program. 2. When fiends are available, NRCS publishes a Request for Proposals (RFP) in the Federal Register to solicit funding proposals from eligible entities with existing farmland protection programs. 3. Eligible entities submit proposals to work with NRCS to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land on productive farm and ranch land. 4. The NRCS State conservationist receives proposals by the date specified in the RFP. 5. The MRCS State conservationist determines entity and land eligibility. 6. The NRCS State conservationist may consult with the State Technical Committee to rank the parcels based on the State FPP FPP Program Description page 2 plan, Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) system, or similar land evaluation system used to evaluate parcels. 7. The NRCS State conservationist makes awards to eligible entities based on the funds provided by the NRCS National office. NRCS enters into cooperative agreements with the selected entities. 8. Following cooperative agreement signature by NRCS and the selected entity, funds may be obligated to the entity, and the entity may begin to purchase conservation easements or other interests in land. Determining National FPP Allocations FPP is available in those States, the Caribbean Area, and Pacific Basin Area that submit an NRCS State FPP plan to the NRCS National office. The State conservationist or director is responsible for developing a State FPP plan. The plan should be developed with advice from the State Technical Committee or its farmland protection subcommittee, which is made up of representatives from State and local farmland protection programs, including non - governmental organizations. A State FPP plan is submitted to the NRCS National office at least every three years, or more often if conditions change. State allocations may be adjusted every three years based on new state FPP plan submissions and at the discretion of the NRCS Chief. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the NRCS State conservationists are to submit one -year state FPP plans to the National office, rather than commit to a three -year cycle. At a minimum, the State FPP plan contains the following National criteria: • Acreage of prime, unique, and important farmland estimated to be protected; • Acreage of prime, unique, and important farmland lost; • Number or acreage of historic and archaeological sites estimated to be protected on farm or ranch lands; • Degree of development pressure; • Degree of leveraging guaranteed by cooperating entities; • History of cooperating entities' commitments to conservation; • Participating entities' histories of acquiring, managing, holding, and enforcing easements (including annual farmland protection expenditures, accomplishments, and staff); • Amount of FPP dollars requested; and • Participating entities' estimated unfunded conservation easements on prime, unique, and important farmland acres. The State FPP plan includes ranking considerations used by the State, including the National criteria (above) and other State ranking criteria. The criteria include, but are not limited to, proximity to protected clusters of farmland, viability of the agricultural operations, parcel size, type of land use, maximum cost expended per acre, degree of leveraging by the entity, and proof of appraisals. State ranking criteria are developed on a State -by -State basis and are available to interested participating entities prior to State proposal submission. Criteria Used to Evaluate Proposals Each State develops ranking criteria to ensure consistent and efficient FPP implementation. The ranking criteria, established in the State FPP plan, enable the State conservationist to prioritize proposals and determine parcels that merit FPP enrollment. The State conservationist, with advice from the State Technical Committee, establishes a weighted ranking system. Priority is given to easements that protect the Nation's most threatened prime, unique, and important farmland or historical and archaeological sites on farm and ranch land. In evaluation of FPP Program Description page 3 proposals and parcels, at least 50 percent of the weight is based on the National criteria. The remaining weight is based on State criteria contained in the State FPP plan, LESA system, or a similar land evaluation system approved by the State conservationist. Priority also is given to: • Easements or other interests in land that provide permanent protection from conversion to non - agricultural use-(note: conservation easements are preferable to fee title acquisition); • Easements acquired by entities that have extensive experience in managing and enforcing easements, adequate staff to manage stewardship responsibilities, and sufficient oversight requirements; • Lands and locations that link to other Federal, Tribal, State, local, or non- governmental organizations' efforts with complementary farmland protection objectives (e.g., open space, watershed and wildlife protection); • Lands that provide special social, economic, and environmental benefits to the region; and • Geographic regions where the enrollment of particular lands may help achieve National, State, and regional goals and objectives. Cooperative Agreements Once selected, entities work with the appropriate NRCS State conservationist to finalize and sign cooperative agreements, incorporating all necessary FPP requirements. A cooperative agreement is the legal contract with which the Federal government establishes partnerships with the entities. The cooperative agreement: • Identifies the easement holder; • Includes management and enforcement responsibilities by the easement holder and MRCS; • Includes a reversionary clause regarding the Federal government's rights to the land if FPP Program Description p" the easement holder fails to manage the easement; • Contains conservation plan requirements for highly erodible land; and • Includes indemnification language releasing NRCS from any fiscal responsibilities, such as costs, damages, claims, liabilities, and judgements incurred by the landowner or cooperating entity. Conservation Easements In exchange for payment, participating landowners agree not to convert their land to non - agricultural uses and to develop and implement a conservation plan for any highly erodible land. Landowners are paid fair market value. The fair market value of conservation easements is determined using standard real property appraisal methods. The conveyance document (e.g., conservation easement deed) used by the eligible entity must be reviewed and approved by the NRCS National office before being recorded. Since title to the easement is held by an entity other than the United States, the conveyance document must contain a clause that all rights conveyed by the landowner under the document will become vested in the United States should the cooperating entity (i.e., the grantee) abandon or attempt to terminate the conservation easement. For More Information If you need more information about FPP, please contact your local USDA Service Center, listed in the telephone book under U.S. Department of Agriculture, or your local conservation district. Information also is available on the World Wide Web at: http: / /www.nres.usda '.gov /programs /farmbill/ 2002/ �.+ Visit USDA on the Web at: ° °��qr•'v http: //www.usda.gov /farmbill age 4 %6�4j N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture Questions and Answers May 2002 r �t Q. What is the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)? Farm Bill 2002 Farmland Protection Program A. FPP is a voluntary Federal program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture. The program provides matching funds to State, Tribal, and local governments and non - governmental organizations with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) is designated as the lead agency in implementing this program. Q. What are the major changes to FPP in the 2002 Farm Bill? A. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) expands the program beyond state and local governments to include non - governmental organizations as eligible entities. It also makes farm and ranch land containing historical and archaeological sites eligible. The 2002 Farm Bill also allows a State, Tribal, or local government or non- governmental organization to supplement its share of the easement cost through a landowner's donation, not to exceed 25 percent of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement. Q. What is a conservation easement? A. A conservation easement is an interest in land, as defined and delineated in a deed, whereby the landowner conveys specific rights, title, and interests in a property to a State, Tribal, or local government or non- governmental organization. The landowner retains those rights, title, and interests in the property which are specifically reserved to the landowner in the easement deed, such as the right to farm. Q. What is a purchase of agricultural conservation easement (PACE) program? A. A PACE program, sometimes referred to as a purchase of development rights program, is a voluntary farmland protection program that compensates landowners for voluntarily limiting future development of their land for non- agricultural uses. PACE programs, which are generally operated by. Federal, State, and local governments or non - governmental organizations, enable landowners to sell development rights on their land to a government agency or non- governmental organization, such as a land trust, while retaining full ownership. Q. How does a landowner participate in FPP? A. A landowner submits an application to an entity —a State, Tribal, or local government or a non - governmental organization —that has an existing farmland protection program. In exchange for payment, participating landowners agree not to convert their land to non- agricultural uses and to develop and implement a conservation plan for any highly erodible land. The NRCS State conservationist, with advice from the State Technical Committee, awards funds to The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 25 qualified entities to conduct their farmland protection programs. These entities acquire conservation easements from landowners. Q. How is the value of a conservation easement determined? A. The value of a conservation easement usually is determined through a professional appraisal. A qualified appraiser assesses the difference between the fair market value of the property, often using comparable sales, and its restricted value under the easement. Q. What restrictions are found in a typical easement? A. The easements generally restrict non -farm development and subdivisions. Some farm - related housing may be allowed. Generally, there are few restrictions on improvements and construction related to the farming operation. The easements become part of the land deed and are recorded in the local land records. Q. Are all agricultural conservation easements the same? A. The basic purpose and structure of all agricultural conservation easements are the same. However, each easement is tailored to the specific farm being protected. Exact language in the easement may reflect future expansion plans of the landowners, including the needs of their heirs. Q. How do the easements affect other rights of ownership? A. The landowner controls the land and use of the land according to the agricultural conservation easement. The land is still owned by the landowner and can be transferred, deeded, or sold, just as any other property. The easement does not require any provisions for public access, unless such access was negotiated as part of the easement purchase transaction. Q. Does a conservation easement affect a farmer's ability to borrow money? A. A farm loan usually is based on the ability of the farm operation to carry the loan. Therefore, a conservation easement, which only affects non -farm development activities, not the farm operation, should not have a bearing on the farmer's ability to borrow operating funds. If a lending institution holds a lien on a property, it must review the sale of the conservation easement just as it would need to. approve any transaction on the property. Q. What are the local property tax implications of protecting farmland with conservation easements? A. Because the landowner still owns the property, he or she is still responsible for paying any associated property taxes. Since many states have programs that tax farmland based on its use or farm value, the net effect of the easement on local property tax revenues is little to none. Q. How are the proceeds from the sale of a conservation easement treated for tax purposes? A. The easement sale proceeds are treated as any other capital gain for Federal, State, and local income tax purposes. Some. State or local programs have provisions that allow for installment purchases or have used securable tax- exempt bonds as a method of payment. Q. What is the role of the Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments and non- governmental organizations? A. Cooperating governmental or non- governmental organizations process the easement acquisition, hold, manage, and FPP Questions and Answers page 2 26 enforce easements. The Federal share of any easement acquisition is limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the purchased easement price, not to exceed the fair, market value of the development rights. A Federal contingent right interest in the property must be incorporated in each easement deed to protect the Federal investment if the cooperating entity terminates, defaults, or divests itself from the easement. For More Information If you need more information about FPP, please contact your local USDA Service Center, listed in the telephone book under U.S. Department of Agriculture, or your local conservation district. Information also is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fannbill/ 2002/ �r/y'J•*i Visit USDA on the Web at: http. /lwww.usda.gov /farmbill FPP Questions and Answers page 3 �Ow� N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture Fact Sheet May 2002 t� Farm Bill 2002 Farmland Protection Program Overview The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) is a voluntary program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture. The program provides matching funds to State, Tribal, or local governments and non- governmental organizations with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements or other interests in land. FPP is reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill). The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) manages the program. Benefit/Accomplishments Through 2001, more than 108,000 acres have been protected in 28 states. How FPP Works USDA works through State, Tribal, and local governments and non - governmental organizations to conduct the FPP. These entities acquire conservation easements from landowners. Participating landowners agree not to convert their land to non - agricultural uses and to develop and implement a conservation plan for any highly erodible land. All highly erodible lands enrolled must have a conservation plan developed based on the standards in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide and approved by the local conservation district. Landowners retain all rights to use the property for agriculture. To participate, a landowner submits an ' application to an entity —a State, Tribal, or local government or a non - governmental organization —that has an existing farmland protection program. The NRCS State conservationist, with advice from the State Technical Committee, awards funds to qualified entities to conduct their farmland protection programs. Although a minimum of 30 years is required for conservation easements, priority is given to applications with perpetual easements. Eligibility To qualify for FPP, the land offered must be part or all of a farm or ranch and must: • Contain prime, unique, or other productive soil or historical or archaeological resources; • Be included in a pending offer from a State, Tribal, or local government or non- governmental organization's farmland protection program; • Be privately owned; • Be covered by a conservation plan for any highly erodible land; • Be large enough to sustain agricultural production; • Be accessible to markets for what the land produces; and • Be surrounded by parcels of land that can support long -term agricultural production. If the land cannot be converted to non- agricultural uses because of existing deed restrictions or other legal constraints, it is ineligible for FPP. Funding FPP is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation. The FPP share of the easement cost must not exceed 50 percent of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement or other interest in the land. A State, The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 2 Tribal, or local government or non- For More Information governmental organization may supplement its If you need more information about FPP, share of the easement cost through a please contact your local USDA Service landowner's donation, not to exceed 25 Center, listed in the telephone book under U.S. percent of the appraised fair market value of Department of Agriculture, or your local the conservation easement. conservation district. Information also is available on the World Wide Web at: http: / /www.nres.usda.gov /programs /farmbill/ 2002/ .a *IL N °�Iy Visit USDA on the Web at: Ing http: / /www.usda.gov /farmbill FPP Fact Sheet page 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ORANGE COUNTY- ENVIRONMENT & RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Tina Moon, Land Use /Preservation Planner Date: April 10, 2002 Subject: "Straw" Potential Changes to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program (VFPP) Ordinance Staff has worked to explore potential changes to the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program, originally enacted in 1992, as per APB discussion in March. In recent years many changes have occurred in VFPP's and the status of farming, warranting revisiting the ordinance. We have used the ordinances from other jurisdictions, the new model ordinance, and comments from the APB meeting to develop a "straw" set of initial suggestions for changes to the program. These are presented below, section by section, as a starting point for further discussion. Once the APB has changes made that it feels are sufficient, it would then refer these recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. In some cases, notably Section IV (districts and APB membership), additional research and information is needed before a recommendation can be generated. As such, we recommend deferring this section until new farmland mapping and discussions of potential Agricultural Priority Areas can occur this spring and fall. Section I — ENACTMENT No proposed changes. Section II — PURPOSE Using the State Model and other county ordinances (such as Iredell) as examples, expand the existing purpose statement to be a statement of the importance of farming and to link it to existing County policy documents. Section III - DEFINITIONS No proposed changes. Section IV — AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD It is recommended that this section, which deals with membership (and hence, what constitutes a "district') be deferred for later discussion. The farmland mapping project and 31 �� r 2 the discussion of potential Agricultural Priority Areas could prove helpful in addressing "districts, " The ultimate question is whether to continue with farms as individual districts or whether districts are larger areas of the County, within which farms could participate in the program. The following excerpt from subsection B illustrates how the definition of districts affects membership on the Board, B. MEMBERSHIP 1. Requirements b. Each District existing pursuant to this ordinance shall be represented on the board by a person owning farmland in the district. Subject to revision based on forthcoming ideas for large Agricultural Districts based on agricultural priority areas. D. DUTIES Include a ninth duty, as per the State Model Ordinance, to develop a countywide farmland preservation plan as defined in NCGS § 106- 744(e)(1) for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. Reconsider size requirements for individual farm and two or more farms applying as package. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of establishing large regional districts Examples of existing North Carolina programs show that urban areas tend to use agricultural priority areas and part of a ranking system, and often have smaller acreage requirements. D. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES 6. Change language to say conservation "agreement "not conservation "easement,'*' Section VI - REVOCATION OF CONSERVATION AGREEMENT No proposed changes. Section VII - PUBLIC HEARINGS No proposed changes. Section VIII - RECORD NOTICE OF PROXIMITY TO FARMLANDS B. PROCEDURE Change from B to C C, Add 1, Install identification signs along right of way 2. Place maps of current VADs and notice of their status and what it means to be a farm, in key offices such as Planning &Inspections, the Register of Deeds, Land Records, Cooperative Extension, Soil & Water Conservation, Rural Farm Services 3, Require written notice on preliminary plans for major subdivisions and planned developments within one mile of an existing VAD L: \Tina \AgPreservation \VFPP0 changes -2.doc 3 4, Consider having a statement for signature for building permit applicants and landowners recording plats or deeds at the Register of Deeds alerting them of proximity of farm and what it means to live near a farm. Section IX — WAIVER OF WATER AND SEWER ASSESSMENTS No proposed changes. Section X — LAND -USE INCENTIVES TO VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FORMATION No proposed changes. Section XI - NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY NOTIFICATION No proposed changes. Section XII — PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS No proposed changes. L: \Tina \AgPreservation \VFPPO changes -2.doc North Carolina County Ordinances and Programs Summary Chart County Year Program Minimum Acreage Requirement Ado ted Alamance 2001 • 5 acres horticulture use • 10 acres general agriculture • 20 acres forestry Avery 1992 • 1 farm of 50 contiguous acres or, two or more farms with minimum of 25 acres within a mile of each other Buncombe 1989 • 100 contiguous acres, or two or more farms consisting of a total of 100 acres and lying within one mile of each other Brunswick 2001 • 10 acres, or two or more farms consisting of 10 acres within a mile of each other Caswell 2001 • 20 acres, or two or more farms consisting of 20 acres within one mile Chatham 2001 • 20 contiguous acres, or two or more farms consisting of at least 20 acres within one mile of each other Cherokee 1995 • 20 contiguous acres, or two or more farms consisting of at least 20 acres within one mile of each other Clay • 40 acres, or two or more farms consisting of at least 40 acres within one mile of each other Cleveland 2001 • 50 acres, or two or more farms consisting of at least 50 acres within one mile of each other Durham 1999 • 20 contiguous acres, or two or more farms consisting of at least 20 acres within one mile of each other per rankin system Forsyth 1986 • 10 acres or, • Contiguous to a ten acre tract in the program Guilford 2000 • 20 acres or two or more farms within a half mile Haywood 1994 • 25 contiguous acres, or two or more farms consisting of at least 25 acres within one mile of each other Henderson 1991 200 contiguous acres, or five or more farms which collectively will create a district with each said farm lying within one mile of each other Iredell 2001 • 50 or more contiguous acres, or at least 2 or more farms, which collectively will form a district Macon 1997 • 30 acres, or two or more farms consisting of 50 acres within one mile Madison • One or more farms totaling 200 acres Orange • 80 or more contiguous acres, or at least 2 or more contiguous farms, which collectively will form 80 acres Rowan 1991 • 200 contiguous acres, or five or more farms which collectively will create a district with each said farm lying within one mile of each other n A [ J North Carolina County Ordinances and Programs Summary Chart County Year Program Minimum Acreage Requirement ted Adopted: Rutherford 50 acres, or at least two or more farms within one mile Sampson 2001 25 acres, or at least two or more farms within one mile Union 2001 20 acres, or at least two or more farms within one mile Wake 1989 10 acres in agricultural use • less than 10 acres if contiguous to tract of more than ten acres to which county holds the development rights to or if they are located in APA • In rimarily productive agricultural soils Watauga • 25 acres, or at least two or more farms within one mile ORANGE COUNTY VOLUNTARY FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM ORDINANCE Section I - ENACTMENT 4/18/00 1 Pursuant to the authority conferred by the Farmland Preservation Enabling Act, Article 61 of Chapter 106 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Section 106 -735 et seq., and for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the county, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, hereby adopts this ordinance, which shall be known as the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance of Orange County, North Carolina. Section II - PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to encourage the voluntary preservation and protection of farmland from non -farm development, recognizing the importance of agriculture to the economic and cultural life of the county. Section III - DEFINITIONS (amended 4 117100) For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following definitions: Board: Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board Chair: Chair of the Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board District: Voluntary Agricultural District Section IV - AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD (amended 4/17/00) A. CREATION An Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board, consisting of seven (7) initial members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, is hereby established. Thereafter, the Agricultural Preservation Board shall consist of up to seven (7) at -large members plus one member for each District created and existing under this Ordinance, all appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional appointments may be made to satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B.1.b.of this ordinance. B. MEMBERSHIP 1. Requirements a. Each Board member shall be a resident of Orange County. 4/18/00 2 b. Each District existing pursuant to this ordinance shall be represented on the Board by a person owning farmland in the district. The Board of County Commissioners shall appoint the District representatives and shall make its selection of a representative from each District from among those owning farmland in the District. c. The remaining members of the Board shall be appointed at -large by the Board of County Commissioners to represent a broad range of agricultural interests. 2. Tenure Each member shall serve a term of three (3) years, except that the initial Board is to consist of two (2) appointees for terms of two (2) years, two (2) appointees for terms of three (3) years, and three (3) appointees for terms of four (4) years. Thereafter, all appointments are to be for terms of three (3) years, with reappointments permitted. Notwithstanding the term limits contained in this section, District representatives may be appointed and re- appointed as necessary to insure that each District is represented as provided in Section B.1.b of this Ordinance. 3. Vacancies Any vacancy on the Board is to be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term. C. PROCEDURE The Board shall develop procedures for the conduct of its meetings, which procedures shall be consistent with Robert's Rules of Order. D. DUTIES The Board shall have the authority to: 1. Review and approve the form of the agreement to sustain agriculture required in Section V of this ordinance; 2. Review and approve applications for qualifying farmland certification and make recommendations concerning the establishment and modification of agricultural districts; 3. Review and make recommendations concerning proposed amendments to this ordinance; 4. Hold public hearings pursuant to Section VII of this ordinance; 5. Hold joint public hearings with the Orange County Board of Commissioners on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations within Orange County; 6. Advise the Board of County Commissioners on projects, programs or issues affecting the agricultural economy or activities within the county and that will affect agricultural districts; 7. Study additional methods of farmland preservation and make recommendations to the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and 8. Perform other related tasks or duties assigned by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. 4/18/00 3 7 Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS (amended 4117100) A. PURPOSE The purpose of voluntary agricultural districts is to increase identity and pride in the agricultural community and its way of life, and to increase protection from nuisance suits and other negative impacts on properly- managed farms. B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. An agricultural district shall initially consist of: a. At least 80 contiguous acres (rounded to the nearest whole acre) of certified qualifying farmland; or (Amended 9122192 and 5124193) b. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 80 acres (rounded to the nearest whole acre). (Amended 9122192 and 5124193) In addition, small tracts or lots, when surrounded by or adjacent to certified qualifying farms, may be added to and thereby included in an existing or proposed voluntary agricultural district. (Amended 2122193) 2. The owners of the qualifying farmland must execute an agreement with Orange County to sustain agriculture in the District. 3. Qualifying farmland may be added to existing districts upon execution by the owner of an agreement to sustain agriculture. 4. In the event that one or more participants in the District withdraw and the acreage in the District becomes less than the minimum acreage required or results in the remaining land being non - contiguous, a voluntary agricultural district will continue to exist so long as there is one qualifying farm. C. CERTIFICATION AS QUALIFYING FARMLAND 1. To secure certification as qualifying farmland, a farm must: a. Be participating in the farm present use -value taxation program established by the N.C. General Statutes, Sections 105 -277.2 through 105 - 277.7, or is otherwise determined by the County to meet all the qualifications of this program set forth in the N.C. General Statutes, Sections 105 - 277.3. b. Be certified by the Natural Resources 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: (1) Are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops; (2) Have good soil qualities; �i 4/18/00 4 (3) Are favorable for all major crops common to Orange County; (4) Have a favorable growing season; and (5) Receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields for an average of eight (8) out of ten (10) years; be one on which at least two - thirds of the land has been actively used in agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations as defined in the N.C. General Statutes, Section 105 -277.2 (1,2, and 3), during each of the five (5) previous years, measured from the date on which the determination must be made as to whether the land in question qualifies. C. Be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service defined erosion - control practices as specified in the 1985 Food Security Act. d. Be the subject of a conservation agreement, as provided in Article 4 of Chapter 121 of the N.C. General Statutes, between Orange County and the owner of such land that prohibits non -farm use or development of such land_ for a period of at least ten (10) years, except for the creation of not more than three (3) lots that meet applicable Orange County zoning and subdivision regulations. D. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES A farmland owner may apply for either certification as qualifying farmland or for qualifying farmland certification and designation as a voluntary agricultural district. For a farmland owner to receive the benefits provided by this ordinance, the farm must be certified as qualifying farmland by the Agricultural Preservation Board and designated as a voluntary agricultural district by the Board of County Commissioners. Applications for qualifying farmland certification and for voluntary agricultural district designation shall be made to the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department on forms provided by that department. 2. The Environment and Resource Conservation Department shall review each application for completeness. When complete, the application shall be forwarded to: a. The Orange County Tax Supervisor's Office; and b. The local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Within 30 days of receiving an application, the above offices shall evaluate the application for compliance with the requirements of Section V.D.2. above and return their findings to the Environment and Resource Conservation Department. The Environment and Resource Conservation Department shall present the application for consideration at the first meeting of the Agricultural Preservation Board, following receipt of the findings of the above offices. 3. Within 60 days of receipt of the findings of the Orange County Tax Supervisor and Natural Resources Conservation Service offices, the Board will render a decision regarding the application of qualifying farmland status, and, if applicable, prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the establishment of a 4/18/00 5 voluntary agricultural district. The Chair will notify the applicant by mail of the Board's decision as to whether the real property for which certification is sought satisfies the criteria established in Section V and has been certified as qualifying farmland. If application was also sought for designation as a voluntary agricultural district, the Chair will notify the applicant of the Board's recommendation concerning such designation. 4. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Board, the Board of County Commissioners may consider an application for establishment of a voluntary agricultural district. In deciding whether to establish a district, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the findings of the Orange County Tax Supervisor and Natural Resources Conservation Service offices as well as the recommendation of the Board. 5. Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the establishment of a voluntary agricultural district shall become effective upon recordation of a conservation agreement, prepared in accordance with Section V.C.(1)(d), executed by the landowner and the County, and recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds as provided in the N.C. General Statutes, Section 121 -41. 6. Upon recordation of a conservation easement, the Environment and Resource Conservation Department will notify the Orange County Tax Supervisor of the voluntary agricultural district established. The location of said district will be marked on the Orange County tax maps. E. The County may take such action as it deems appropriate through the Agricultural Preservation Board or other body or individual to encourage the formation of voluntary agricultural districts and to further their purposes and objectives, including, at a minimum, a public information program to reasonably inform landowners of the farmland preservation program. Section VI- REVOCATION OF CONSERVATION AGREEMENT By written notice to the Board of County Commissioners, a landowner of qualifying farmland may revoke the conservation agreement formulated pursuant to Section V of this ordinance. Such revocation shall result in loss of qualifying status, and consequently, loss of eligibility to participate in a voluntary agricultural district and benefits thereof. Upon revocation of a conservation agreement, written notice of the revocation shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds as provided in the N.C. General Statutes, Section 121 -41. Section VII - PUBLIC HEARINGS (amended 4117100) 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 voluntary agricultural district until such agency or unit has requested the Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board to hold a public hearing on the proposed condemnation. B. PROCEDURE 1. Upon receiving a request, the Agricultural Preservation Board shall publish notice describing the proposed action in a newspaper having general circulation in the area within seven (7) days of the request, and will in the same notice notify the public of a public hearing on the proposed condemnation, to be held within 30 days of receipt of the request. 4/18/00 2. The Board will, in making its findings and recommendations following the public hearing, consider 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. Alternatives to the proposed action that have less impact and are less disruptive to the agricultural activities and farm land base of the voluntary agricultural district within which the proposed action is to take place. 3. The Board will consult with the Orange County Cooperative Extension Service, the local U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service office, and the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department, and may consult with any other individuals, agencies or organizations, public or private, necessary to the Board's review of the proposed action. 4. Within 30 days after the request for public hearing, the Board will make a report to the decision - making body of the proposed condemnor, which report shall contain the Board's findings and recommendations regarding the proposed action. 5. Pursuant to N.C. General Statutes, Section 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 limitation. Section VIII - RECORD NOTICE OF PROXIMITY TO FARMLANDS A. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to help prevent potential conflicts from occurring between qualifying farms and non -farm landowners regarding acceptable and responsible farming operations and practices, and to minimize the incidence of nuisance suits against owners of qualifying farmland. B. PROCEDURE Upon certification of qualifying farmland and designation of real property as a voluntary agricultural district, the Orange County Land Records System shall be changed to include a notice reasonably calculated to alert a person researching the title of a particular tract that such tract is located within one -half mile of a voluntary agricultural district. C. 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 any ordinance adopted under subsection B above. D. 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. Section IX - WAIVER OF WATER AND SEWER ASSESSMENTS A. Landowner(s) belonging to voluntary agricultural districts shall not be assessed for or required to connect to Orange County water and /or sewer systems. F i E 4/18/00 7 B. Water and sewer assessments will be held in abeyance, without interest, for farms, whether inside or outside of a voluntary agricultural district, until improvements on such property are connected to the water or sewer system for which the assessment was made. C. When the period of abeyance ends, the assessment is payable in accordance with the terms set out in the assessment resolution. D. Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that any assessment is held in abeyance without interest. E. Assessment procedures followed under Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the N.C. General Statutes 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. Nothing in this section is intended to diminish the authority of the County to hold assessments in abeyance under N.C. General Statutes, Section 153A -201. Section X - LAND -USE INCENTIVES TO VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FORMATION A. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to help meet the needs of agriculture as an industry in Orange County and prevent conflicts between voluntary agricultural district participants and non -farm landowners in proximity to districts. B. PROCEDURE Land -use planning decisions and ordinances affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district shall take into account the existence of such district and the purpose of this ordinance. Section XI - NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY NOTIFICATION A. The Board may consult with the North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture, the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water, and any other entity the Boards deems necessary to the proper conduct of its business. B. A copy of this ordinance shall be recorded with the North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture's Office after adoption. At least once a year, the County shall submit a written report to the Commissioner of Agriculture including the status, progress, and activities of the County's farmland preservation program, which report may include voluntary agricultural districting information regarding: 1. Number of landowners involved in the program; 2. Number of acres for which qualifying farmland certification has been applied for; 3. Number of acres certified as qualifying farmland; 4. Number of acres denied certification as qualifying farmland; and 5. Number of districts in Orange County. 4/18/00 8 C. Copies of the reports cited in Section XI.B. above may be sent to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and any other entities the Board deems appropriate. Section XII - PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS As provided in the N.C. General Statutes, Section 106 -744, Orange County may, with the voluntary consent of landowners, acquire by purchase agricultural conservation easements over qualifying farmland as defined in Section V.D. of this ordinance and located within a voluntary agricultural district as defined in Section V.C. of this ordinance. This ordinance shall be effective from and after April 1, 1992. Duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, this 24th day of March, 1992. Revised 9122192; 5124193; 4117100. H:adab /vfpp418 ATTACHMENT 4 R ORMGE COUANTY 250 Celebrating 250 Years of Diversity, Freedom, Preservation and Education On September 9, 1752, a new county was born of the North Carolina back country — a county that spanned the area from present -day Greensboro to present -day Durham, from the Virginia line to the Uwharrie mountains. On that day, Orange County became a reality as the first colonial court was held at Grayfields along the Eno River. Originally inhabited by the Occaneechi /Saponi nation and other native American tribes, the new county encompassed a land area of 3,500 square miles, including all of present day Alamance, Caswell, Person, Durham and Chatham counties as well as parts of Wake, Lee, Randolph, Guildford and Rockingham counties. At its founding, Orange County had a population of 4,000. Two hundred and fifty years later, as citizens in one of the oldest Piedmont counties, Orange County's 120,000 residents — residing in an area just under 400 square miles — have a lot to celebrate: ➢ A legacy of education that dates back to the opening of the first state university in the nation with the University of North Carolina, chartered in 1789 and opened in 1795, through the development of six freedmen's schools formed in Orange County by 1868, and continuing today with a burgeoning UNC- Chapel Hill and local school systems rated among the best in the southeastern U.S. ➢ A legacy of preservation, of cultural resources like colonial era buildings, of agricultural resources and farmland, and of natural resources like Occoneechee Mountain, Seven Mile Creek, and the Eno River corridor. ➢ A legacy of diversity — beginning first with Indian nations, reshaped by the arrival of people from Europe and Africa, and in recent years with the addition of many persons from Asia, Latin America and other places around the globe. ➢ A legacy of freedom, whether the ideals of freedom expressed by the Regulators and the patriots of the American Revolution, by women struggling for equality, by African - Americans fighting to own property and achieve civil rights, by sharecroppers and mill workers striving for dignity, by free - speech advocates in the mid -20th century. In all of these struggles, important battles were fought in Orange County. For all of these reasons, there is a need to celebrate 250 years of our County. Although social and political issues sometimes divide us, there is much that 4 argues for unity and recognizing the common ground within our borders. Knowing that a rich tapestry of diverse people, ideas, and natural gifts has been a mainstay of the past 250 years, we welcome the diversity that future years will also bring. Mindful of our proud heritage, the mission of the ORANGE COUNTY 250 celebration is to bring together citizens from to celebrate and educate ourselves about the people who've called Orange County home - whether past or present. The ORANGE COUNTY 250 committee seeks your help in celebrating our common heritage! Currently there are plans to: 1. Hold a kickoff event commemorating the County's origin beginning on September 8t" with a walk from Moorefields to Hillsborough bearing an artifact from the 1750s and continuing on September 9, 2002 with a re- enactment of the first County court in the 1840 Courthouse, brief remarks from several noted County dignitaries, and a ringing of church and courthouse bells across the County. 2. Conduct an ORANGE COUNTY 250 logo competition among professional and amateur artists. 3. Post highway signs and banners that advertise and celebrate our anniversary. 4. Encourage the County's numerous and varied civic organizations to develop programs with an ORANGE COUNTY 250 theme during the semi - quincentennial year beginning September 9, 2002. 5. Develop driving tours and other activities relating to the County'spast and present and encourage local residents to explore Orange County. 6. Finally, to close the year, host a celebration of the County's past, present and future in September 2003 to conclude the celebration activities. Orange County residents have much to celebrate. Please help us set the stage for a year of unity and affirmation by volunteering for Orange County 250, by making a contribution,. by participating in the many events throughout the year. For more information on how you can help, please call Informational Items Agricultural Preservation Board 6 land relservation report Co vering the policies, practices and initiati ves that save farmland and open space Since 1990 . Deborah Bowers Editor ry „ . Farmland gets nearly $1 billion federal boost WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congress has passed, - and the president was about to sign at press time, a farm bill that authorizes $985 million in assistance to farmland preservation programs, a sum 28 times higher than the $35 million authorized in the 1996 farm bill. Farmland protection over the last decade has evolved from a mere footnote to one of the top - funded conservation programs in the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002, the formal title of the farm bill. "This is a big step ahead for farmland preservation. We'll be considered one of the mainline programs for the future," said Land Trust Alliance federal policy director Russ Shay. Denise Coleman of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the agency.that administers the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), said a request for proposals is ready to go out to states as soon as it is approved by legal counsel and NRCS chief Bruce Knight. The request for proposals (RFP) will find farmland preservation programs ready to respond, nationwide, as NRCS moves to spend $50 million by Sept. 30. For FY 03, $100 million is authorized, and for 2004 and 2005 each, $125 million. Douglas Lawrence, chief of the NRCS Community Assistance and Resource Conservation Division, said a provision in the farm bill requiring rulemaking to occur within 90 days of bill passage will not preclude publication of the RFP. "Our goal is to get it out in less than two weeks," he said. Anticipating significant funding for the FPP would be approved in the farm bill, Lawrence's division primed state NRCS offices in March by having them contact probable applicants to determine the level of potential requests. According to Coleman, 34 states inquired about the program, "so there are more and more states coming on board all the time ... those states have indicated they have $234 million in offers -in- hand," she said. In addition, the presence of significant money in Washington is already having an effect Continued on page 2 Volume 12, Number 7 May 2002 Bruce Knight becomes chief at NRCS .......................... 5 Supreme Court rules no takings at Tahoe ..................... 5 Study shows Ca. land trust ag protection ..................... 5 Jobpostings ................................. ............................... 7 11 'IN Farmland Preservation Report is published by Bowers Publishing, Inc. 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $205 includes index and hotline services. Editorial and circulation offices: 900 La Grange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 • (410) 692 -2708 * ISSN: 1050 -6373. © 2002 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of this material without permission from the publisher is prohibited. Page 2 farmland preservation report May 2002 Farmland atop- funded conservation program Continued from page 1 in some states that have no purchase of development rights programs — states such as Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Hawaii and Kansas. That's right, Kansas, a state not generally thought of in terms of sprawl and farmland loss. But there are about 15 urban - influenced counties in Kansas, those surrounding Kansas City, Topeka, and Wichita. . "Wichita County lost 30,000 acres in the last NRI," said Ron Egbarts, Kansas state conservationist with the NRCS, referring to the National Resources Inventory, performed every five years by the agency. Egbarts said he is putting together a team of stakeholders to explore creating a PDR program for Kansas. "I came up with an action plan to get out to our management team," made up of five area coordinators. Of 105 counties, 10 are designated as urban, Egbarts said. "We don't expect funding in 2002 _-we are just trying to get input and trying to get the information out to people to see if there is potential," Egbarts said. He plans to contact nonprofit organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and Kansas land trusts. And, Egbart said he wouldn't stop there. "We're going to try to do a teleconference for the Northern Plains states." Dramatic gain for farmland protection How did the Farmland Protection Program make such a dramatic gain in funding? According to Russ Shay of the Land Trust Alliance, whose members are eligible to apply for FPP funds, it was the have -nots of traditional farm bill spending that pushed farmland preservation to the forefront of conservation spending boosts — states like New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont, where small farms prevail, and farm subsidies have been traditionally nil. Even California fruit and vegetable growers who have not received commodity subsidies saw their chance for federal dollars through conservation programs. According to Shay, conservation and environmental groups urged legislators from states traditionally disinterested in farm bill negotiations to get their share of the money. "It was pretty complex, but a lot of it was the conservation movement as a whole, including a very diverse group of people, that really made an effort to get senators and House members outside of the Midwest looking at the program and asking `what could you get out of the farm bill ?' Farmland preservation was the most easily understood program, with tangible projects that were popular projects. People woke up and saw that was something valuable they could get out of the farm bill." Farmland preservation in the farm bill Farmland preservation first entered the farm bill arena in 1990 with the Farms for the Future Act, which provided guaranteed loans and subsidized interest payments to assist state farmland preservation programs. But it was the next farm bill, in 1996, that lifted farmland preservation to formal program status, creating the federal Farmland Protection Program in which state and local programs applied for funding, set at $35 million over six years. The money was spent in three years, however, and in 1999 Sen. Patrick Leahy and seven co- sponsors introduced legislation to appropriate $55 million annually to the program, signaling support for increased funding. In the new farm bill, the Farmland Protection Progra -has burst upon the scene as one of the bright spots in a conservation -rich jackpot: of all conservation programs, it received one of the steepest increases in funding. Continued on page 3 May 2002 farmland preservation report Conservation Funding Authorizations Conservation Reserve Prg (CRP) $1.5 billion Wetlands Reserve Prg (WRP) $1.5 billion Grasslands Reserve Prg (GRP) $254 million Farmland Protection Prg (FPP) $985 million Wildlife Habitat Incentives (WHIP) $700 million Env. Quality Incentives Prg (EQIP) $9 billion Water Conservation Prg $600 million Conservation Security Prg $2 billion Small Watershed Rehab. Prg $275 million Desert Terminal Lakes $200 million Source: Conference Committee report, Title 11- Conservation Farmland Protection Program Annual Authorizations Fiscal Year Amount (in _millions) 2002 $50 2003 $100 2004 $125 2005 $125 2006 $100 2007 $97 Source: House web site "This is a major breakthrough for the future of our nation's farmland," said American Farmland Trust President Ralph Grossi. "In committing $1 billion for farmland protection, Congress responded to the needs and demands of farmers and ranchers nationwide. Farmland Page 3 to apply for FPP funds under the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, which appropriated $10 million for the FPP. Later, land trusts became fully eligible regardless of location, and under the new farm bill they, along with all applicants, have an extra benefit: up to 25 percent of fair market value can be donated by the landowner and count toward the sponsor's 50 percent match. "Before, they always had to provide a cash match," a sometimes difficult fundraising proposition for land trusts, said Russ Shay. To date, about a dozen land trusts have received funds under FPP, including several land trusts in Maryland, which operate their own programs with state funds under the Rural Legacy Program. Small farms, sustainability hard hit Environmental groups were among the first critics of the farm bill's return to a full focus on commodity.support,..saying:the effect ofan 80 percent increase in land conservation programs will be compromised by provisions that funnel more money to corporate and factory farm operations. Sustainable farming, advocacy groups say, took a big hit, loosing several key provisions that would have helped smaller operations. The Campaign for Family Farms called for a rejection of the conference committee bill because it threw out a ban on packer ownership of livestock and restrictions on large payments being made to factory farms and meatpackers. The farm bill is "a travesty, a boondoggle and an outrage," said Minnesota farmer Monica Kahout, a member of the Land Stewardship Project. "This farm bill supports corporate livestock factories, pure and simple." protection now has a seat at the roundtable of agricultural policy -it's a major program Florida, California make big gains addressing a significant national need." Land trust participation Land trusts in states that did not have farmland preservation programs became eligible According to Craig Evans, an advocate for conservation efforts and farm operations in Florida, his state will see possibly greater than a Continued on page 4 Page 4 Continued from page 3 farmland preservation report I 0 -fold increase in farm bill dollars due to changes in conservation programs and funding boosts in the conservation title. Florida and California, the nation's highest value agricultural producers, have ironically been on the low end of assistance from the farm bill, which has traditionally supported "the grain and Plains states," Evans said. Evans said that widespread criticism concerning subsidies doesn't consider that "a lot of the decisions made in the farm bill were based on our cheap food policy," that critics overlook what drives a policy movement. The farm bill, Evans said, provides "a good safety net" for commodity growers and also "provides more funding for conservation than any other single piece of legislation in history." Evans worked during farm bill negotiations to streamline how conservation programs are implemented. The aim to make eligibility criteria more flexible and to simplify participation in multiple conservation programs was achieved, Evans said, in the Title II (Sec. 2003) provision "Partnerships and Cooperation." The provision allows the creation of "special agreements" that will cut red tape when multiple programs are used to achieve a conservation practice. Subsidies vs. free market Like farm bills before it, the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 sets up new policy and programs for agricultural production, land and water conservation, and nutrition programs. This farm bill is significantly more generous toward conservation programs than in the past. For example, a whole new program called the Conservation Security Program is budgeted at $2 billion, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is budgeted at $9 billion, up from $1.32 billion.— its original authorization in 1996. The reauthorization of a multitude of conservation programs that make up the 59 May 2002 pages of Title II of the farm bill received significantly greater funding than in 1996. But environmental groups are calling the farm bill a farce, a "joke" and at best a disappointment because it is a reversal of ideals embedded in the 1996 farm bill that promised to end decades of subsidies that encouraged overproduction and to begin an era of support to farmers based on rewards for conservation practices. Dependence on federal payouts was to give way to renewed market forces and "freedom to farm." It was a radical move to let the market, not Washington, have the greater effect on agriculture. But a series of bad weather seasons and uncertain markets resulted in emergency "safety net" bills, and a drive by farm lobbyists to regain full commodity supports. Farm legislation leaders started out this farm bill with a strong drive to continue the move toward conservation -based support to farmers. Battles were won, but the revolution-was lost. Commodity -based farm support won the day: crop supports will not only continue, but are increased by 70 percent, with even more commodities coming into. the loop, including�lentils, honey and wool. The new farm bill will increase spending on agriculture programs to $105 billion, up by $45 billion, over the next six years. Legislators of both political parties admitted election -year posturing had everything to do with who won the fight to funnel federal subsidy dollars: big producers in states where key senators are up for re- election. Small farms were the big losers, say groups like the Center for Rural Affairs and the Environmental Working Group, which this year published online the names of every producer receiving federal payouts and how much they were paid. The move was meant to stir public outrage — and it did, with national media coverage. But the tidal wave of attention slowed to a ripple, and by the time the conference committee had merged House and Senate requirements for the bill, the Continued on page S 49 5 May 2002 farmland preservation report Page 5 E cetera ... Knight becomes NRCS chief; succeeds agency veteran Pearlie Reed WASHINGTON, DC - Bruce I. Knight, a South Dakota farmer and rancher and former vice president for public policy for the National Corn Growers Association, became chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) effective May 6. He was appointed by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman in March. Knight succeeds Pearlie S. Reed, a 34 -year veteran of the NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Reed will be regional conservationist for the western region, which encompasses 10 states. Reed, well -known for his strong leadership in conservation and broad understanding of the relationship between land use and conservation, was appointed associate chief in 1994 and chief in 1998. Prior to 1994 he served as state conservationist in California where he developed a comprehensive soil and water conservation and resource development program for the state. a Knight has been a farmer and rancher since 1976 for a 1,500 -acre diversified grain and cattle operation using no -till and rest rotation grazing systems. Knight will oversee the 11,000- person agency with a budget of $1.1 billion. U.S. Supreme Court rules no taking in Lake Tahoe case The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 -3 April 23 that a temporary ban on development around Lake Tahoe is not a takings under the Constitution, and does not require compensation from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The agency banned homebuilding around the lake in the early 1980s over concerns for the quality of Lake Tahoe's water, and a group of landowners sought $27 million in damages. The court affirmed an appeals court decision against the landowners in the two- decade legal battle. Local planning and environmental groups said the decision upholds local planning powers. A decision in California's high court-in March also stood hard against takings claims. The state Supreme Court upheld a San Francisco law enacted to address a severe shortage of affordable housing, that prevented residential hotels from converting units for tourist use. Continued from page 4 only remnant of constraint was a $360,000 cap on subsidies to an individual or entity. But a loophole promises the cap will loosen in practice. Small farm advocates are caught in a web of philosophical discord as smaller farms, too, are part of the subsidy- driven farm economy. "If it's subsidies or nothing, obviously I want to stay on the farm, so I will take the subsidies," said Rhonda Perry, a farmer and director of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, which represents more than 5,000 rural and farm families. "But the choice shouldn't be to either go out of business or take subsidies. It should be: Who are you going to sell to and who is going to give you the highest price ?" Could FPP funds go even higher? "Is it thinkable? I think it is," said Russ Shay on whether farmland preservation money coul4,,be increased in the next :farm bill, or,. receive a boost in the interim, if the farm bill is revisited before its five -year review is due. "It's up to land trusts and the programs to show there is a far greater demand than the funding — there is the opportunity to get even more funding." Recent history may be a guide. After the 1996 FPP funding was spent in half the time for which it was appropriated, there was legislation to expand the program from its initial $35 million over six years, to $55 million annually, a nearly 10 -fold increase. Ca. land trusts pack in agricultural easements DAVIS, CA — A study to be released by the University of California Agricultural Issues Center (AIC) reports that California land trusts, through both donated and purchased easements, Continued on page 6 5_1 Page 6 farmland preservation report May 2002 News briefs Conlinued from page 5 ■■■ have preserved 137,093 acres of farmland expressly for agricultural use in 28 of the state's 58 counties. The report will be published In Virginia ... Virginians will have later this year. the chance to vote for a $119 The data would likely put California in third place in a million parks bond, $30 million nationwide ranking of states if the ranking included land trust acres. would go to acquisition of parkland A state program ranking conducted by Farmland Preservation and natural areas. But of greater potential is a proposal by Gov. Report in April was based on acres reported by state - operated Mark Warner to impose a $5 per purchase of development rights programs. That ranking placed ton tipping fee on solid waste, California ninth based on 15,400 acres preserved through the state's which is estimated to generate $76 million a year, to be dedicated to Farmland Conservancy Program. The remainder of the total environmental programs. Some reported by AIC, 121,693 acres, was protected by land trusts with legislative leaders have endorsed private funds or through donation. the plan, which would send 40 percent of the money to the state's According to author Alvin D. Sokolow, a public policy two open space programs, the specialist in human and community development at UC- Davis, the Virginia Land Conservation aim of the report was to count all acres that are protected by Foundation and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. A coalition of agricultural conservation easements by organizations targeting land conservation groups, including agricultural lands. Acres protected primarily for open space with the Piedmont Environmental agriculture as a secondary use were excluded, as were acres Council and The Nature Conservancy, has been lobbying protected by organizations whose missions are to protect habitat and for a dedicated source of funding open space for environmenta„ o ecreationaL oses,. . such as The lrrp since .19.99 and found that Virginia .pu Y Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land. needs a minimum -annual'.furid:of. $40 million for land protection. The "Certainly there are thousands of ag acres throughout the state group said the state has 425* covered by easements that don't fit the first category," many located "globally significant conservation in other than the 28 counties in the study, Sokolow said. sites that are unprotected and that the cost of purchasing 30 specific "A part of the distinction is to look at the purposes of top sites would be $20 million. The easement programs" Sokolow said, average per -acre cost of farmland Erik Vink, assistant director of the Department of in the state is $1,925. The coalition stated purchasing easements on 2 Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection, said he was percent of Virginia's farmland comfortable with the study's results. (170,000 acres) would cost $100 "What [the study] tried to do, which I agree with, is to million if purchased at 30 percent of fair market value. In 1999, a determine what land is being protected for agriculture first and legislative subcommittee foremost ... it has the ring of truth to me as to what is happening recommended $40 million be set out there." aside annually, but the result was a one -year appropriation of $1.75 Vink said there had been a void in documentation of land trust million. The fund did not have the activity pertaining to agriculture. support of then -Gov. Jim Gilmore. "We are in the earl stages, and it's helpful to take an earl Y g p y The state lost 450,000 acres of farmland between 1987 and 1997 look to see if we can learn from our experiences to date." and has nationally important The report includes acres reported by the Sonoma County historic sites threatened by Agricultural and Open Space District, whose activities place the development. In Massachusetts ... A $750 county in the nation's top 10 localities for preserved farmland. Last million bond bill that has been July, Farmland Preservation Report ranked Sonoma County as fifth passed by the Senate still awaits in the nation, with 37,873 acres reported by the district as acfion on the House floor. The fund would provide $45 million to the agricultural lands. But the District's reported total in the AIC report Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) program and $15 r- r May 2002 Z" million to the APR's sister program, the Farm Viability Program. In Washington ... Clallam County has established a PDR program, with a start-up allocation this year of $250,000. "If successful, the thought is that this will lead to political will to go for a more permanent program funded by a property tax increment," said planning director Andy Meyer. Three other counties, Thurston, King and Skagit, have, or have had, farmland preservation programs. In New York ... Still no budget, and no way to determine how much of the governor's proposed $6 million will find its way to the Farmland Protection Program, which provides grants to counties and municipalities. "Hopefully next month we'll have some news," said program manager Ken Grudens. The program has protected about 17,000 acres since 1997. In Delaware ... Still no news of new funding for the farmland preservation program. !t has expended all of its funds. In Kentucky ... The program has appraisals back on about 30 properties — about six have accepted offers, according to farmland program administrator Bill Burnette. Like New York, the state has not yet passed a budget. A special session called by the governor had no result. If no budget is agreed upon by July 1, the governor will have to declare emergency funding. "The hangup is over public financing of the governor's race, in place for 10 years. The Republican Senate wants to do away with it, and is holding the budget hostage," Burnette said. In Maryland ... MALPF staff and DNR have initiated discussions about how the agencies will assess and report acreage totals for the state's various land preservation programs. Planning is underway for designing a database that will standardize acreage reporting. Elizabeth Weaver succeeded Carol Council as administrative specialist. farmland preservation report Page 7 is just 22,521 acres, a discrepancy the District could not account for, said program assistant Maria Cipriani. The District's most recent total, as of the end of April, was 30,063 acres, all of which represent lands protected under agricultural conservation easements, according to Cipriani, a total that excluded even parts of parcels that were delineated for open space or habitat purposes. She said the'District had recently acquired new database software. The Farmland Preservation Report ranking includes agricultural acres that may be preserved for multiple purposes, as long as agriculture is the primary protected use. The University of California acre numbers were collected as part of a study of California's experience to date with agricultural easements, funded by the California Department of Conservation through the Great Valley Center and initiated in 1999. The intent of the study, according to Sokolow, was to examine the easement technique as applied to farmland in California, including landowner .motivations and experiences; the origins and organization of local programs; funding; achievements; acquisition strategies; impacts; and prospects for the technique in the Central Valley. The study's complete findings have not yet been released. Profe."s- si©ii�1 resources ■■■ � JJ Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, Executive Director. Salary: $51,697 - $66,346. The position provides advice and counsel on agricultural land preservation issues and policies to the Foundation's Board of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture, administers the operations of the Foundation, coordinates statutory, regulatory, administrative and legislative affairs with other Maryland state, local, and federal governmental agencies, as well as private agricultural land preservation programs and is responsible for managing an annual program budget of $25,000,000. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelors degree from an accredited college or university related to agriculture. Four years of technical work experience in land preservation, one year must include administrative or supervisory work experience. AND SELECTIVE CRITERIA: Three years demonstrated knowledge and professional experience in working with Maryland agriculture and /or agribusiness and specific work experience with land preservation easement programs. Demonstrated work experience communicating with senior government, administrative, and elected officials. Demonstrated work experience with a state, local, or federal legislative process, and demonstrated work experience under or with a Board of Directors OR similar administrative structure. The preferred candidate will have geographic information systems skills, basic computer and word processing skills, and spreadsheet and database management Continued on page 8 farmland preservation report Continued from page 7 skills. Call for additional information and application, (410) 841 -5840. Deadline: May 17. Catawba Lands Conservancy (NC), Land Protection Coordinator- Ten year -old regional land trust with nearly 4,000 protected acres seeks organized, enthusiastic land protection coordinator. Individual will work closely with landowners and their advisors to negotiate and complete land conservation transactions. Additional responsibilities include fundraising for land .acquisition and stewardship projects, field investigations of candidate properties, land stewardship activities on protected properties, written reports and public presentations. Qualifications: bachelor's degree in natural resources, land planning, or related field; two to three years of experience in land conservation, land planning, or other related field, preferably with land trust work experience. Must be a self - starter with an outgoing, friendly personality; have strong written and verbal communication skills; and have a passion for land conservation and the Conservancy's mission. Salary commensurate with qualifications and experience. Send resume and cover letter before June 3 to: Ron M. Altmann, Executive Director, Catawba Lands Conservancy, 105 West Morehead St., Charlotte, NC 28202. (posted 516102) Monadnock Conservancy (NH), Land Protection Project Manager.- The Monadnock Conservancy, a regional land trust serving 33 towns in southwestern NH, seeks an experienced professional for a full -time position as Land Protection Project Manager. The successful candidate will have a bachelor's degree or higher, experience in land conservation or related field, superior interpersonal and communication skills, and the proven ability to manage complex projects in a fast -paced environment without constant supervision. The project manager will be responsible for managing land transactions from start to finish, collaborating with municipalities and partner organizations, helping to refine the organization's overall land protection program, and cultivating relationships with landowners, donors, and other stakeholders. Compensation: $25,000 - $27,000 annual salary, health insurance plan, savings incentives plan, paid vacation. To apply: Send cover letter and resume to: Search Committee, Monadnock Conservancy, PO Box 337, Keene, NH 03421. No phone calls please. Deadline: May 24. CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS June 20 -22, Gettysburg, PA: Mid - Atlantic Land Trust Conference sponsored by the Land Trust Alliance. Call 202 638- 4725. June 23 -26, Shepherdstown, WV: Conservation Easement Stewardship, Sponsored by the Land Trust Alliance and The Conservation Fund. Part of the Land Conservation Leadership Program. For more information: 202 638 -4725. COPYRIGHT NOTICE It is unlawful to reproduce this publication and distrib- ute it to other locations or agencies. If you have a spe- cial need, please contact the publisher. Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! Can't find it on the web? Need a quick answer for an update? Want to get smart for that up- coming presentation? Call or email us. We're faster, friend- lier and smarter than the web! When you have news •- or views - give us a call. We're always eager to hear from you and to provide additional in- formation to help you get up to speed with the nation's best- informed farmland preservation professionals ... FPR subscribers! Welcome! Phone 410 692 -2708 Fax a 410 692 -9741 E -Mail bowerspub @hotmail.com Address Bowers Publishing, Inc. 900 LaGrange Rd. Street, MD 21154 53 5= ACRICULTUP� in T4� L H(L. 2002 $55 Million NCDA &CS Budget $59 Billion ' - ' Ag Related Income MORN (APOLMA UPARTMOT OF AGRICULTURE E (ONSUMP SERVICES Mre Ce#p"%Ir-r hmmmr `J "The citizens of North Carolina have always enjoyed a bounty of agricultural products and resources. Today, North Carolina citizens are still dependent upon the fruits of the land and the economic prosperity that they provide. 'Agriculture in the Balance 2002' provides a condensed summary of the value of agriculture and the supporting services of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. This booklet gives specifics on your individual county and an overview of the entire state. Agriculture is the bedrock of our state and a fundamental necessity Department of assure a wholesome and productive society. The North Carolina Agriculture & Consumer Services is committed to serving the citizens of our state and securing a solid foundation for the future of agriculture. Meg Scott Phipps , P4 ommissioner of Agriculture S NCDA &CS Orange County I — General Agricultural Notes $39 million in Agriculture Cash Receipts 485 Farms with 72,515 acres NCDA &CS Employees living in county — 7 Nurseries - 25 (131 acres) Nursery dealers - 28 Aquatic dealers - 9 1 operating fish farm 10,928 tons of fertilizer, lime and gypsum sold at 6 dealers for a retail value of more than $2.4 million II — Services Provided by NCDA &CS Test/Inspections 7 wholesale food establishments 41 retail food establishments 35 honey bee colonies 65 service stations 863 fuel dispensers 13 propane delivery trucks 3 commercial bulk storage facilities 1 domestic storage location 8 calibration services 1 feed mill 5 wholesale drug distributors 1 pet food distributor 89 traps placed for gypsy moth 16 seed lots during 4 visits to 29 dealers • 298 pesticide related inspections /outreach events conducted for consumers to ensure public health and awareness 11 routine inspections of the work, records and facilities of all structural pest control licensees and non commercial certified applicators • 6 investigations of complaints concerning quality of structural pest control • 320 scales and 43 scanning systems in 73 retail establishments • 25 Phytosanitary certificates issued . Agronomic Analysis 1,844 soil samples 26 nematode assays 297 plant tissue samples 58 waste samples 39 solution samples III - Additional Benefits Ongoing engineering consulting services provided to 8 agribusiness firms • 6 endangered plant species monitored • 9 noxious weeds treated USDA Food Distribution Orange County Jail $830 UN C Hospitals -Room 2033 $147 Freedom House $2,954 Orange County Schools $98,806 IV - Facilities Calibration Station IFC Community Kitchen $2,221 Iskcon of NC, Inc. - $3,821 Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools $115,723 CROPS - 2000 Acres Harv. Yield Production Rank Tobacco, Lbs. 1,005 2,650 2,665,000 42 Cotton, 480 lb. bales 22,518 Average Age of Farmers 56 Soybeans, Bu. 2,600 38 99,000 61 Corn, Bu. 1,100 114 125,000 57 Corn for Silage, Tons 2,900 16 46,700 7 Peanuts, Lbs. Small Grains: • Wheat, Bu. 2,000 46 92,000 60 Barley, Bu. 380 83 31,700 16 Oats, Bu. 200 75 15,000 39 Sweetpotatoes, Cwt. Irish Potatoes, Cwt. All Hay, Tons 14,100 2.60 36,700 13 Sorghum, Bu. LIVESTOCK Number Rank Hogs and Pigs (Dec. 1, 2000) 6,100 46 Cattle (Jan. 1, 2001) 14,000 25 Beef Cows (Jan. 1, 2001) 6,800 25 Milk Cows (Jan. 1, 2001) 2,400 8 Broilers Produced (2000) Turkeys Raised (2000) All Chickens (Dec. 1, 2000) CASH RECEIPTS - 1999 Dollars Rank Livestock $18,802,000 41 Crops $19,222,000 51 Total. $38,024,000 51 Goodness Grows in North Carolina Members A Southern Season Boothe Hill Tea Co. & Greenhouse Busy Bee Apiaries Cackalacky, Inc. Carolina Cupboard - Southern Season Cud -Zu Goat Farm Desi's Dew, LLC Farm Market Fickle Creek Farm Home Industries Hydro -Gro, Inc. Littman Farms Long Haven Corriedales Luminoso Candle Co. Mama Dip's Kitchen, Inc. Maple View Farm Milk Company Minshall's Palatable Temptations Pine Knot Farms Plantworks Nursery Inc. Rose Line Simply Delicious, Inc. THOUSAND oouAas 40,00( 35,00( 30,001 25,00( 20,001 15,001 10,001 5,001 1 ORANGE COUNTY Total Area in County, Acres 255,866 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE - 1997 Number of Farms 485 Total Land in Farms, Acres 72,515 Average Farm Size, Acres 150 Harvested Cropland, Acres 22,518 Average Age of Farmers 56 Average Value of Farm & Buildings S445,793- Market Value of All Machinery & Equipment $22,330,000 Total Farm Production Expense $17,937,000 Cash Receipts From 1970 -1999 Orange County CROPS ❑ LIVESTOCK ® TOTAL • . .N _,; .. do 60 If so Lil '�aii. `•.� £r. Lei 4-k • • R.T. 6 • • • CROPS ❑ LIVESTOCK ® TOTAL North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The N.C. Department of Agriculture ancf.e- Consumer Services has been able to maintain an ever - increasing level of services over the past twenty years. New statutory and regulatory mandates have been placed on programs for public safety and protection. The agricultural economy has grown from an estimated $15 billion to $59 billion per year, as new and different farming systems have evolved. Our rapidly developing state has grown from. a population of almost 5 million to more than 8 million. However, the funding for NCDA &CS programs has . not. kept pace with the growth of the state or with other state programs these past two decades. With the current budget being less than % of 1 percent of the state's total budget, the department is compromised in its ability to provide safe, healthy food and drugs, crop testing, animal disease and plant pest monitoring for the agricultural community and many other programs currently in place. These programs bring tremendous financial returns to North Carolina. Agriculture is North Carolina's number one industry, generating $7.4 billion in cash receipts to our farmers. Agribusiness employees nearly 20 percent of the workforce and provides a significant tax base for local towns and counties as well as the state. Agricultural - related industries and services, such as processing facilities and sales of- equipment and supplies, .provide $59 billion annually to the state's economy. Beyond the economic impact of farming and agribusiness, agriculture also provides consumers a safe and healthy food and drug supply. Consumers on local as well as international levels .enjoy the comforts of clothing, furniture, shelter and other products derived from the fiber and forestry resources produced and processed in North Carolina. This is made possible through the work of NCDA &CS inspectors and graders. Maintenance, diversification and expansion of North Carolina's strong agricultural community ensure a healthy, wholesome and plentiful food supply for our residents and a solid tax base for communities statewide. Statistics show that the farmer's dollar turns over 6 times in the community, while the farmer t requires much less in return from county or state services. Some additional points regarding N.C. agriculture and the NCDA &CS ■ NCDA &CS programs enable North Carolina residents to enjoy a better quality of life through the inspection of meat, poultry, food and drug products and the control of animal diseases and pests. 10 North Carolina remains one of the top agricultural producing states nationally and internationally. The department has led the transition from a tobacco -based economy to a more diversified agricultural. industry where North Carolina is one of the leading producers of meat products, nursery and greenhouse items, and more than 80 other commodities. ■ The department is a resource on nutrient management practices, safe pesticide use and storage, provides field demonstrations, research and many other initiatives to keep agricultural production complementary to natural resource protection. ■ NCDA &CS maintains its traditional services with a reduced budget, while increasing its focus on protecting agricultural resources in the state from foreign animal diseases and possible acts of terrorism. Food and drug safety, animal health, and other NCDA &CS agricultural programs continue on a shoestring budget. G Programs and Services Provided • Fund pesticide recycling centers • Respond to fires, spills and disasters involving pesticides • Increase consumer awareness and demand for NC agricultural products through programs such as Goodness Grows . • Provide domestic and international marketing.for North Carolina crops and livestock • Operate 5 statewide Farmer's Markets, 2 agribusiness facilities,* state fairgrounds, Mountain State Fair and NC State Fair • Help farmers sell food and fiber in statewide locations including retail food service, wholesale, military, institutional, school systems and local and regional farmer's markets • Collect, compile, analyze and disseminate up -to -date prices, trends,'information and movements in NC agriculture products for farmers, consumers, media and agribusiness • Create jobs and encourage economic growth by expanding and recruiting agribusiness in the state • Weights & measures calibration service offered to industries to help meet regulatory and contract requirements • Assist homeowners, landowners and municipalities to meet permit requirements by soil and waste analysis • Operate 6 statewide animal disease diagnostic labs • Consumer protection against fraud from unlicensed structural pest applicators • Train industry personnel to identify and grade agricultural products according to USDA standards and consumer preference Work with FFA, 4 =H and other youth programs to increase awareness and understanding of agriculture • Alert consumers to emergency recalls and services provided by the NCDA &CS • Develop and maintain policies and plans that support the agricultural community's efforts to prepare for and respond to emergency events • Distribute USDA foods to school systems and hunger relief agencies and solicit the use of locally grown produce • Provide and maintain 18 research facilities to increase food and fiber production and quality while sustaining the environment • Protect agricultural and horticultural crops by preventing and minimizing the invasion and spread of plant and animal pest and diseases • Protect native plants by restoring their natural habitats and seeking biological controls of pest species • Promote new crops and livestock through ongoing diversification of farming • Provide county governments, soil and water conservation districts and rural communities a consistent approach to all regulations and policies developed by federal and state agencies which impact rural areas of the state, socially, economically and structurally Licenses and Permits Issued • Aquaculture licenses . Apiary inspection certificate • Fertilizer, lime, seed and feed • Limestone registration permits . Soil additives. registration . • Grain dealers license • Fertilizer registration" • Feed registration • Seed dealer license • Drug manufacturer registration . Fertilizer manufacturer license • Pesticide applicator license • Nursery dealers certificate (public, private and aerial) • Collected plant certificate • Aircraft inspection (decal) • . Nursery registration certificate • Pest control inspection license Plant inspection certificate • Pest control consultant license Bee movement permit • Pesticide license (ground and Bee sellers permit dealers) Motor fuel substitutes approval • Pesticide registration • Weighing and measuring • Wholesale and retail frozen certificates dessert inspection certificate . Bulk anhydrous ammonia • Antifreeze registration permit approval • Milk testers and samplers license . Bulk LP gas storage approval • Wholesale prescription drug . Motor fuel registration distribution license • LP gas dealer registration • Worker protection standard • Scale technician registration trainer certificate . Public weighmaster license. • Fruit and vegetables handler . Petroleum device technician permit registration • Agricultural fair license • Structural pest control • State fair permits certification and license • Rendering plant license • Cotton gin license • Animal shelter registration • Dealer and pet shop license (dogs and cats) • Public auction license • Public livestock market license • Livestock dealers license • Hatching egg dealer license • Chick dealer license • Hatchery license • Biologics production license • Meat and poultry handlers license • Plant movement license • Ginseng dealer permit • Protected plant permit • Tobacco plant import permit .y 4, L" MILLIONS 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 90000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 BILLIONS 60 50 40 30 20 10 AUTHORIZED GENERAL BUDGET AGRICULTURE BUDGET COMPARED TO STATE BUDGET 1960 -2002 r 55.6 (0.376% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2002 M STATE BUDGET (MILLIONS) ❑ AG BUDGET (MILLIONS) AGRICULTURE'S ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION & NC POPULATION 1960 -2002 MILLIONS 60 50 .E W 491 10 0 1- - - . - -- i 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2002 TOTAL AG INCOME (BILLIONS) -*-POPULATION (MILLIONS) E • \FUNDED 11 North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services