Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB Meeting Summary 07302025 Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board Approved Meeting Summary: July 30', 2025 ***Bonnie Davis Center, 1020 US 70 West, Hillsborough *** 6:30 pm Members Present: Compton, Hooten, Hughes, Miller, Ranells, Wagger, Weitzel, Woods Members Absent: Taylor, Totten Guests: None Staff: Jessica Perrin, Soil and Water Conservation Manager, Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator 1. Call to order: Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 6:34 pm 2. Chair Comments/Introductions: None 3. Considerations of Additions to Agenda: Hughes asked to add a discussion about a future educational initiative. 4. Meeting Summary/Minutes: Woods moved to approve the meeting summary for March 19tn, 2025, seconded by Compton; motion passed. S. Items for Decision: a) Updated/revised draft of Ag Viability and Stewardship Plan: Staff provided an overview of the current status of the draft plan. Hughes opened up the floor for discussion. Members posed a number of questions, generating lengthy discussion. There was a question about the Orange Conservation Alliance mentioned in the text—what is that?This was a group formed back in the early 2000s to help with advocacy/outreach for our 2009 plan, but then died out. General agreement that we need advocacy, either independently or as a coalition, to help push the plan goals. Hughes referenced the recent efforts to form the "One Orange" group and how it struggled to reach a consensus. The proposed "farmland stewardship coordinator" position—where based?All current staff involved in farmland preservation will collaborate to determine where best to locate within DEAPR and to develop a solid job description in advance. Staff noted that ultimately, this plan is the APB's plan, and the group may want to promote concepts that not everyone is in favor of. Remember, our big goals only get implemented when the APB makes a specific "ask" for the BOCC to consider/fund/approve/reject. Funding for the new position, for instance, will only be possible if we get approval to have the recaptured PUV revenue allocated toward farmland 7 z preservation, so our larger need is to establish a dedicated funding stream to support a position and fund future land conservation projects. Timing for presenting this back to the BOCC needs to be planned for late this year—December/January will be OK. Need to do more advocacy work with the BOCC to help them better understand the concepts. Could put this on agenda for a fall BOCC work session to prepare for getting them to approve, or as they say now, "accept" the plan. Hughes noted that the subcommittee revisited the draft after the BOCC input, to address their comments, then it went to the County attorney, who had lots of edits, then in Planning, Cy and Tom had other edits to suggest. Some changes requested had the effect of"dampening" some of the initiatives, such as the goal of paying directly for training or GAP certification. Ranells noted it was hard to see so much hard work go into the plan then to feel like we had to make adjustments that drifted away from the initial goals. Members agreed that overall, the current draft seemed pretty reasonable, with good goals. It's OK if the final plan makes recommendations that push the envelope. We need to make sure it represents the collective views and wishes of this group. Staff noted that there are other ways to obtain non-county funding for certain plan goals, from land trusts or the Farm Bureau, so let's leave the original goals but word differently to allow for outside funding. Some suggested an appendix listing some of the current/trending major ideas of the farmland preservation movement to make sure the BOCC and others see that there are additional tools being used or proposed by others. Ranells suggested that we need to reconvene the subcommittee, maybe with Jane included, to make sure that we're ultimately proposing our best ideas and making sure that we don't lose anything due to various review comments. All agreed that we need to ask for all we can get. Even if timing is bad, say with regard to asking for PUV recapture, we still need to make it clear that these programs are needed to meet our goals, and avoid getting in the weeds about where the money is coming from. When we next present to BOCC, we need a brief but thoughtful overview presentation to explain in simple terms "why we are here before you tonight" to help them focus on big picture. Some suggested a summary or conclusion to actually name/address the constraints that we're working with, let the summary be a clear statement of what we went through, and what we think will be needed to get real forward motion. There is a need for an executive summary, that tells where we are now, here is what's needed etc. Our summary now is essentially a short version of the plan. Might help to frame the issues in simple language in one place, as a preface or overview that will help orient the reader. Hughes suggests we bring the subcommittee together to discuss these issues, see if they can develop something a little less sensitive to the comments. We need to remind ourselves about our role for the BOCC: we are charged with advising them—they asked us for our advice, so here it is, representing so many hours by citizens and staff, devoted to generating our best goals/recommendations. Not unreasonable to remind them of the amount of work that's gone into this and remind them of their charge to the APB—to advise them on all things Ag. Need to capture hours of citizen/volunteer time. Remind them of who is on the APB/their backgrounds, and how much knowledge the group brings to bear 3 for the BOCC. A good exercise: what do we as a group think are our most important asks? If we were asked to pick three things from the plan, what would our top three priorities be? The report doesn't rank things. So, it may be strategic for us to make that clear, what do we think is most important? Prioritizing the goals is really the responsibility of the APB, if we're going to get goals implemented. Could highlight key priorities in a transmittal letter, "we are so proud of the work we've done it represents thousands of citizen hours, etc. etc." then highlight the critical action items, maybe rank them in order of priority. This could be something we do at a future meeting. Not all goals have to be big—small ones will help build a sense of success too. Remember, our BOCC wants to be a top adopter of important new ideas. Other counties are doing this, so Orange is now late joining the game. And that relates back to the need for members to be able to work on having personal relationships. That is how this will get done, to build personal relationships, build trust, help the BOCC believe in what we do. Let's consider developing a "cheat sheet" for the plan, a distillation of the key goals, to help us all articulate. Ranells moved to reconvene the subcommittee, inviting Saiers to join, to review all the edits to make sure that we stay true to our goals, and to report back to the membership; seconded by Woods; motion passed. b) Membership: Staff handed out a current roster showing five vacancies. On a positive note, both Mary Beth Miller and Michael Wagger are willing to serve a second term. Jeff Sykes agreed to come back to serve in the Cane Creek-Buckhorn district position, to replace Michael McPherson. Staff noted the addition of a new application from Glenn Rose, who will qualify for the Hillsborough VAD district. Compton suggested that staff reach out to Blake Thompson who lives at White Cross. He farms and also works at A&T as a field crop coordinator. The group agrees we need to attract younger farmers. Miller will reach out to some young farmers who might be interested. Staff will share any new applicants by email with a request to vote/rank them quickly, so that they can be included in the upcoming round of BOCC appointments in September. Ranells moved to recommend reappointing Miller and Wagger, and appointing Glenn Rose to the Hillsborough district position, and Jeff Sykes to the newly vacant Cane Creek/Buckhorn district position, seconded by Woods. Motion carried. 6. Discussion Items: a) VAD Program Updates: Perrin hopes to present at least one application in September. They installed seven new signs and are now up to date. There was discussion about Chantal damage and possible forms of state declaration and assistance. They can allocate some of this coming year's cost-share funding if needed. The FSA has an emergency program that might be able to help. Also, important to report any crop damage. Soil and Water, and Extension, both have fire ant bait spreaders that can be rented out for a modest fee. b) VAD Breakfast: Camp Chestnut Ridge is the proposed location. Members agreed that Wednesday, November 191" will be the best date. The rental charge is still reasonable, at $175, and meals will cost $13 per person, up from $11 last year. Ideas for potential speakers 4 included: someone from Planning provide an update about the Land Use Plan process; other farmers who could give brief presentations, maybe a new farmer from the Breeze Farm? Keeping staff presentations brief helped last year. We should have a brief snapshot view of the current state of the Farmland Preservation Plan. Might get good feedback from this group; discussion about handouts or QR codes to facilitate feedback. The programs were so good last year we should consider capturing on video. 7. Informational Items/Future Agenda Items: a. Follow up on Conservation Easement and Farm Succession Program: From all accounts, the program was well received, with about 31 attendees, with a nice breakfast. Members who attended felt it was a good program with a lot of useful information. Ranells felt that the attorney gave one of the best presentations on that topic that he's heard. b. Extension and Ag Economic Development activities: Ortosky couldn't attend but in his absence, staff showed an attractive new video that promotes the various activities at the Breeze Farm. 8. Time for Information Sharing: Hughes reviewed his interest in getting started with an ag education program, along the lines of what is now done with environmental education programming. His wife, Dale, coordinates environmental ed programs for the Chapel Hill Public Library. Dale is willing to hold Oct. 12 (National Farmers Day) for a two-hour program. Need to determine what is important for us to promote. We'll need to form a subcommittee to work on this effort. Discussion followed. Will this be hosted by the APB? Yes, it can help get the Chapel Hill folks connected to farming/food production. Can do several presentations covering different topics/APB objectives, maybe create a "library' of presentations to use for outreach. What is target audience: children or adults? Can the AFT or Noah's group help? Members noted that there wasn't a lot of time to get this pulled together in this short period of time. Maybe Jeff and Ashley could do their programs, and we could video those. The Environmental Ed Activity book for farming dates back to the late 1990s, with over 700 pages, over 50 lessons. Some noted that it was last updated in early 2000s so some content is not current.? 9. Adjournment: Compton moved to adjourn, seconded by Ranells; meeting adjourned at 8:32 pm.