ENFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION
FARMLAND PRESERVATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
7:30 P.M.
820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut 06082
Enfield Room
MINUTES
The meeting will adjourn promptly at 9:30 PM
Enfield Conservation Commission
Meeting of August 5, 2008
Call to Order – Meeting called to order at 7:38 PM
Roll Call - Natalie George, Joanne Kneiss, Mike Dynia, Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Richard Szewczak, Kathleen Vose
Public Input:
Kevin Sullivan – Chestnut Hill Farm, Suffield, spoke to subcommittee regarding farmland and potential for supporting agricultural activity in Enfield. Mr. Sullivan noted Enfield has the potential for extensive food and fiber production because of the excellent soils.
He is a farmer with a family owned business for over 25 years. They raise nursery stock, perennials, corn, squash, and pumpkins. They also grow organic herbs that they sell to the Highland Market chain.
The family has 22 acres in Stafford in greenhouses where they grow perennials. They farm around 95 acres but are looking for more, possibly in Enfield; they need to increase the acreage they farm to make it financially worthwhile.
Mr. Sullivan graduated a 4-year degree program in Doylestown, PA at the Delaware Valley College of Soil & Agriculture. His schoolmates stayed mostly in the Northeast and NJ and he was interested to see who had moved into which agricultural field after school.
Mr. Sullivan said it was surprising to see how little competition there is for farmland among farmers in this part of the country – the CT River valley is known nationally for its good soils. The average amount of land individually farmed in New England is between 4 and 11 acres, most of it worked part time. (Natalie gave the Enfield numbers noting most farms were over 30 acres and under the control of about 40 families.) Mr. Sullivan stated it would be beneficial to work toward getting more support for farmers working smaller plots. He also noted that 60% of farms under 3 years old are owned by women – these are actual farmers, not a tax dodge or created to take advantage of any minority related opportunities.
The group discussed the education process and noted the need to encourage more young people to go into the business and to encourage schools to promote agriculture.
Mr. Sullivan observed that Enfield is extremely accessible (road system / Interstate 91 / rail lines). At the same time there is recognition at the state level of a need for processing. That means that state producers are limited to short and long term markets. There effectively is no local grain production, etc. Farmers grow what they know sells – if the market softens, they have fewer options.
Mr. Sullivan also noted the state work force is experienced in manufacturing, and that it has a higher level of education. He pointed out that there are several land grant (have research programs and get income from doing research, etc.) colleges nearby that will react to viable trends in the Valley.
Processing plants – organizational options (Kevin will check on these types for the subcommittee): Co-ops; Individuals; Commercial
Preliminary ‘Cons’: Water use? Pollution? Power needs? These and other issues will need research.
Economics of farming were touched on briefly. There is approximately a 5% to 1.25% return on investment – how can it be made more profitable? One way is to increase the production time; an initial time spread discussed was from February to November. Using technology and techniques in use internationally (Israel, for example) it might eventually be possible to expand productivity to 365 days a year.
Farming and agriculture terminology was discussed. There is a need to differentiate farming and farm land. At present farm land is combined with open space. It was observed that it is undesirable to leave that current connection as farms (good farm soils) should not be considered open space and therefore potential recreation space (sports fields) – The terms farms and farm land should be completely distinct from any such use other than agricultural production.
Farm ownership – Mr. Sullivan pointed out that farmers would prefer to own rather than lease property. There is a current problem with some towns owning farm land but being unwilling to lease to farmers for the long term. Farmers are unlikely over the short term to make the kinds of investment necessary to make and keep land productive. It was the opinion of the subcommittee that the town was unlikely to be interested in owning farm land. However, it would favor the town consider helping to fund or contribute toward growing small or new local farmers.
Mr. Sullivan advised that the subcommittee observe who is stronger at doing certain things. He noted the State is strong in marketing and will help to do so. He also mentioned USDA grants, but they are available to operations at least 2 year old; he suggested the town might help young or new farmers over those 1st 2 years in some fashion. (The subcommittee will have to consider that in recommendations to the town, and where USDA grants and amounts can be factored in to those recommendations.)
Rich Szewczak pointed out that everyone who provides funding is looking for a return in some fashion on that money. The town would need commitment and community support from farmers. Suggestions from Mr. Sullivan: to work successfully with farmers, they respect Valley Labs (Windsor & New Haven) and also Extension Agents (UConn)
It was believed that investment by the town would be wise and also good PR – any local public funding would be guaranteed to stay as investment in locally productive farm land and farmers. This would add to the local and regional economy since the asset (farm soils) would not be moved away as a commercial or industrial company could.
Other funding and investment sources were discussed. Mr. Sullivan pointed out in particular Pioneer Farm Credit on South Road – agriculture friendly; large percentage of their portfolio is connected with related investments – who might help with putting together partners and/or funding for a processing plant or plants.
Kevin will look into:
· Soil maps (he recommends we also check older aerials for what’ was farmed – checking 1948 air photo boards, 3 drawers in Engineering)
· Processing plants - footprint samples
Correspondence / All Commissioners
Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall reviewed a Courant article and Op-ED piece on the house in Cromwell losing its back yard to erosion by the CT River. A comparison in the article was made with similar properties and soil conditions in East Windsor and Enfield along the Scantic River. A third article was also discussed describing the loss of prime agricultural soils to development in Cromwell, and the town’s creation of a Farmland Preservation Board as a requirement to getting State funds for the industrial park development that was the focus of the article.
Natalie George informed the subcommittee she would be getting updated grand list data – the data she presently has is several years old.
Ms. George agreed, upon consensus of the subcommittee, that she would accept nomination as Chair. However, she would prefer to be known as the subcommittee facilitator rather than Chair. A motion reflecting that agreement was made by Kathleen Vose and seconded by Mike Dynia. The vote was 6-0-0.
Further discussions
· The subcommittee needs to finalize its major goal(s)
· Update and determine recommended pieces for acquisition and prepare a list for a report to the Town Council.
· Narrow goals in the Open Space and Farmland Preservation study (down to 3?)
· Promote recognition of open space and farmland preservation on desirability as viable economic ground work
· Open Space and Farmland Preservation study needs to be recognized by Council as a legitimate document. It needs to be brought to them for confirmation, but first needs several pages of updates and clarifications added up front. Natalie will begin working on that, with input and recommendations submitted by committee members.
· Both subjects, open space and farmland, must be explained in their relationship to sustainability issues.
· Separate farmland from open space and recreation space process – see terminology discussion, above.
· We need to research grant potential to fund cost benefit analysis. (Check Department of Agriculture web site re the $249,000 figure mentioned by Mr. Chester during his previous presentation). Question raised about possible November deadlines for monies for planning and inventory
· Management plans for open space need to be created and made part of permanent process / procedures. Rich made the observation that the important issue of linkage potential needs to be fully researched and made part of this and other parts of the OSFP study, and the process discussions in general.
The major agenda items were agreed upon for the next subcommittee meeting on August 12, 2008:
· Definition: ‘Farmland’ or ‘Agriculture’
· Goals - Actions & Recommendations, etc. (‘Brainstorming’ notes from 7/22/08 & 8/5/2008 meetings)
· Enfield soils, food and fiber production, local farmer support initiatives, economic development issues (production, processing, local & regional partnerships, transportation, markets, zoning, legislation, etc.)
Approval of Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The attendees were corrected (Vose, George, Szewczak, & Kneiss). A motion was made by Mr. Szewczak, seconded by Ms. George to accept the minutes as amended. The vote was 4-0-2; Commissioners Dynia and Pfeifer-Hall abstained.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 PM
Respectfully submitted: ________________________________________
Subcommittee Facilitator / Acting Facilitator
|