AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Indian River County (IRC) Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC) met at 2:00 P.M. on Thursday, May 25, 2006 in the First Floor Conference Room A, th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Present were Chairman Robert Adair, Jr. and Gary Pressley, Associated Industry Appointees; Kevin O Dare, Vegetable Industry Appointee (3:04 p.m.); and Rusty Banack, Horticulture Appointee. Ralph Sexton, Cattle Industry Appointee, had an excused absence. For the record, at this time there are vacancies for both Citrus and Irrigation Industry Appointees. Also present were Commissioner Liaison Wesley Davis and IRC Staff: Marian Fell, Assistant County Attorney; Himanshu Mehta, Environmental Engineer and Gerald LeBeau, Superintendent of Water Production, Utilities Department; Rob Fox, Bruce Goodwyn and Mark Godwin, Real Estate Appraisers, Property Appraiser s Office; and Reta Smith, Assistant to the Executive Aide. Also present were: Representative L. Ralph Poppell; Lex Kromhout, Board Member and Treasurer, Indian River Soil and Water Conservation District (IRSWCD); Dan Richey, Riverfront Groves, Inc.; Jack Hebb, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Multi-County Citrus Agent; Michael Ziegler, Agricultural Resource Management; Jill Grimaldi, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.; Clint Grisson, Steve Smith and L. D. Ingersoll, Interested Citizens; and Henry Stephens, Press Journal Call to Order Chairman Adair called the meeting to order. Approval of Minutes of February 23, 2006 ON MOTION by Mr. Banack, SECONDED by Mr. Pressley, the Committee voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the minutes of February 23, 2006 as presented. AGCOM-Approved 1 May 25, 2006

2 Criteria for Agricultural Exemption for Active Citrus Groves versus Abandoned Citrus Groves Bruce Goodwyn, Real Estate Appraiser, IRC Property Appraiser s Office Chairman Adair observed there seemed to be quite a few abandoned groves, particularly in areas east of Interstate 95 (I-95), and as the County developed further west of I-95 the issue would become more pronounced. He pointed out the AAC members were concerned about maintaining a viable agriculture in the County and the issue of pests and diseases, such as citrus canker and greening, from abandoned citrus groves infecting adjoining actively managed groves. Chairman Adair wanted to know how the IRC Property Appraiser s Office determined when a grove was abandoned and what the criteria was for taking it off the agricultural tax rolls. Mr. Bruce Goodwyn, Real Estate Appraiser, IRC Property Appraiser s Office, said probably the biggest problem the Appraiser s Office had was in determining what qualified and what did not qualify for an agricultural exemption. He specified there were a lot of marginal groves and the statute was very gray in a lot of areas when it came to enforcing taking grove property off the tax rolls. He mentioned when a property was taken off the agricultural tax rolls it went before a board, which sometimes put in back on the tax rolls as agricultural property because the owners showed they had picked it or were trying to maintain it as agriculture. He continued an abandoned grove could be taken off the tax rolls, but if a grower brought in a plan the Property Appraiser s Office would work with him as long as progress was being made. Mr. Goodwyn related the Property Appraiser s Office had reduced the groves they knew were affected by canker to an assessment of $50.00 per acre to give the grower a break and afford them a little time to recoup whatever they could to get their grove operating again. Chairman Adair asked if there would be some incentive for the owner of an abandoned grove to push and burn the citrus trees on that grove. Mr. Goodwyn explained when a grower could no longer afford to grow citrus on a piece of property, he fenced the property and it became pasture. He stated pasture land was valued at $270 per acre, versus $2,000 or better for a citrus grove, so it was to the owner s advantage to push the property and fence it in. Mr. Goodwyn felt this was a good incentive to keep the property in agriculture at a reduced rate. Chairman Adair said the concern was about abandoned groves with infected citrus trees because the canker could be spread to surrounding active groves. Mr. O Dare opined it was time the County contributed money to the citrus industry just as they did for beach restoration. AGCOM-Approved 2 May 25, 2006

3 Mr. Dan Richey, Riverfront Groves, Inc., noted the grower who was abandoning his grove most likely no longer had the capital to viably operate the property as a grove and it was probably not going to be brought back. He thought perhaps there ought to be some sort of tax incentive developed to rectify the circumstances the growers were in. Mr. Richey thought possibly there might be a cost share with the County for an owner to push a grove, or a cash incentive for the grower to clear the land. Mr. Goodwyn suggested the AAC members approach the BCC or IRC Property Appraiser, Mr. David Nolte, with a proposal. He related the amount of taxes the agricultural properties contributed to the County as a whole was less than 4% or 5% of the total. Commissioner Davis suggested if a property was no longer an operational grove the trees should be removed and there should be some kind of a shift from abandoned grove to a different type of agricultural commodity. A lengthy discussion followed. Representative Poppell mentioned that Commissioner of Agriculture Charles Bronson s office was working with the University of Florida to come up with alternative crops that could be turned into ethanol. He noted nobody knew how much canker might be present in the abandoned groves because they were not being surveyed as widely as active groves. The differentiations between a five-acre lot with a child s 4-H project animal on it and legitimate agricultural uses were discussed. Mr. Ziegler pointed out the Division of Plant Industry (DPI) had 15 different surveys, one being the Abandoned Grove Survey which had to occur once a year. He suggested encouraging DPI to have a survey of abandoned groves every 90 days in Indian River County, so a disease or pest would be detected more readily and the response could be delivered in a timely manner. He acknowledged there would always be a problem with finding enough inspectors, however perhaps DPI could be pressured by the BCC into employing private individuals to conduct abandoned grove surveys. A discussion ensued. Commissioner Davis asked for something in writing with backup he could give to BCC so they could be apprised of the situation. He said he would place it under his matters on the agenda and give the AAC the opportunity to make a presentation. AGCOM-Approved 3 May 25, 2006

4 Chairman Adair asked Mr. Richey if he could encapsulate the idea of tax incentives into one paragraph. Mr. Richey agreed to do so. Mr. Kromhout stressed we should not forget grove owners who were still struggling and trying to make a profit and wondered if we could find a way to shore up the profitability potential. He agreed with Representative Poppell that ethanol was potentially something that could be made from citrus and it was just one step further in the processing of orange juice to make it. He noted the old Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. facility was basically an abandoned processing plant, adding in Lake Alfred they were building a plant specifically for ethanol processing. He thought if we could figure out a way to make this happen in our County we might be able to create another profit center for those in the citrus industry who were struggling. ON MOTION BY Mr. O Dare, SECONDED BY Mr. Banack, the Committee voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend the Board of County Commissioners support tax incentives to push abandoned groves. Mr. Steve Smith, a local developer, stated he was working on a Comprehensive Plan amendment that was going to address all of the land west of the urban service line. He explained the proposal was to allow varying lot sizes as long as they did not exceed one unit per five acres. Mr. Smith indicated this would afford good looking subdivisions and developments to give more value to land outside the urban service area, instead of just five or ten-acre ranchettes. He clarified if a person had a 200-acre parcel, the amendment would allow 40 available home sites that could be done in two-acre lots with the rest being an equestrian facility, lakes or whatever they wanted, as long as the one unit per five acres was not increased. He specified his company had 200 acres next to Quail Valley Golf Course and were looking to add nine holes of golf and have about 50 home sites of 1.5 to 2.5 acres built around a series of lakes looking over the golf course. Chairman Adair suggested bringing Mr. Smith back to the August 24, 2006 AAC meeting and possibly inviting Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Director of Community Development, and go over this in more depth at that time. Update on the Expansion of the North County Well Field - Himanshu Mehta, Environmental Engineer, IRC Utilities Department Chairman Adair recalled at the last meeting on February 23, 2006, the Committee had talked about the County s plan to drill six more wells in the North County well field, and the question at that time was if there would be any adverse AGCOM-Approved 4 May 25, 2006

5 impact on local agricultural wells. He noted the new wells were planned to be 16 inch bores with a 12 inch turbine pump 100 feet down, which would impact adjacent permitted wells. This was especially relevant since the County was in the middle of a drought right now. Mr. Mehta introduced Ms. Jill Grimaldi of Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) and Gerald LeBeau, Superintendent of Water Production, IRC Utilities Department. Mr. Mehta explained IRC had opted to go to artesian water as a source of supply, while the City of Vero Beach did a combination of both shallow and deep aquifer wells. He continued the reverse osmosis approach was a state of the art approach to making water, noting at the present time the brine was being discharged into the Indian River Lagoon. Mr. Mehta mentioned the County was trying to get away from putting brine into the Indian River Lagoon and had support from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to move in that direction. He described the water plants, wells and tanks existing in the County at this time. Mr. Mehta stated there were three wells at the North County Reverse Osmosis plant right now and CDM had been authorized to identify up to about 20 wells in that area and collect data in order to establish a base line. The data would later be summarized in a report and presented to the AAC to update them as to what was going on. Mr. Mehta specified approximately 25,000 new homes would be built inside the urban service area boundary in the next 5 to 10 years, and the County had a commitment to supply water to the new developments. He advised the design for the new wells was 90% complete and the consumptive use permit for the well field was about 75% completed and would be submitted shortly. He discussed the permit process necessary for the expansion of the well fields. Mr. LeBeau remarked the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) had made it clear to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) that they would not allow an increase in pumping at the South County well field because it would impact existing permitted wells in St.Lucie County, which is within the SFWMD, so any expansion had to be at the North County plant. Mr. Kromhout explained the SFWMD was a structured system that used a canal system to drain the land in its region, and they had made significant strides in recent years to create surface reservoirs to recharge the area. He stated they were doing a lot of things to provide for long-term water needs, but the SJRWMD was taking a completely different approach because they dealt with sheet flows and did not use a structured system (canals). He noted in drier times the marshes dried up which created problems for surface water as well as for the artesian wells down AGCOM-Approved 5 May 25, 2006

6 below. He expressed concern about the impact the North County well field would have on surrounding permitted agricultural users. Ms. Grimaldi distributed literature showing the proposed well locations, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. She advised CDM had done the design of the North County Water Plant back in the mid-1990s and now employed the people who did the original model. Ms.Grimaldi indicated to date the model had held true and there was no new data so there was no reason to update the model. She reported the County had authorized CDM to go out for the next 18 to 24 months and collect data during construction of the water treatment plant in order to establish seasonal fluctuations in the artesian wells, including those belonging to the County. If and when those wells were put on line, CDM would continue to monitor adjacent wells to see what impacts if any had been put on them by the proposed six new wells. Ms. Grimaldi related SJRWMD would not give the County a permit to operate the wells if they were going to negatively impact neighboring wells, without forcing mitigation. She specified mitigation would be to pay for pumps installed at neighboring artesian wells and the County having to pay for running electricity to those wells, because they would have to provide growers with the mechanism by which to get water out of their wells if they ceased to flow. A lengthy discussion followed. Chairman Adair was concerned about the wells only being monitored monthly because the rainy season would start in one month and there would be only be one data point before we got rain. He thought it might be a better idea to do weekly monitoring to capture as much data as possible to be able to compare the cause and effect relationship between pumping at the North County well field and flow rates at existing adjacent wells. Ms. Grimaldi agreed the more data points you had the better it was, but noted they did not have permission from any of the grove owners to the north or the west of the North County Water Treatment Plant to sample, due to growers not wanting anyone on their property because of the possible spread of canker. Mr. LeBeau advised the monitoring would be ongoing even when the wells were in operation. Ms. Grimaldi stated the water plant had to be built because new developments coming into the County had already paid almost $17 million worth of impact fees, and by law the County was required to be able to provide water to those people when they built their houses and got their Certificates of Occupancy. A discussion followed about the rapid pace of growth and development in AGCOM-Approved 6 May 25, 2006

7 Florida and the potential lack of water. Chairman Adair asked Commissioner Davis if he could help CDM gain access to some of the properties in order to get the data for the wells. Commissioner Davis said if Ms. Grimaldi told him where they were located, he would see what he could do. Re-use water was discussed. Chairman Adair suggested the Committee strongly encourage increasing the monitoring as much as possible. He wanted the County to look into providing re-use water for agricultural as a way of ameliorating potential effects between the two models, and look to provide tertiary treated water for agriculture outside of the urban surface area. Chairman Adair thought it was important to be proactive in dealing with this and suggested plugging some of the old wells that were not being used. Mr. Richey recommended the BCC consider as a part of the staff review of all proposed new developments that a site plan approval be conditioned on the following: 1) Identification of all flow wells and 2) certification that all wells either be properly plugged or permitted by SJRWMD. It was the consensus of the Committee was to approve this recommendation. Mr. Mehta observed there were some measures already in place to cap wells in order to get site plan approval. Several Committee members mentioned there were numerous old wells in poor condition located in new developments in spite of those measures. Ms. Grimaldi mentioned at the BCC meeting on May 23, 2006 Commissioner Bowden had requested County Administrator Joseph Baird to organize workshops with the water management districts, and encouraged all members to attend the workshops and voice the concerns of the agricultural growers. She mentioned CDM had very strong ties to the water management districts and the overall opinion of both the SFWMD and SJWMD was that there was not a water crisis in Florida. ON MOTION BY Mr. Banack, SECONDED BY Mr. Pressley, the Committee voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend the BCC look at providing re-use water outside the urban service area for agricultural purposes only. AGCOM-Approved 7 May 25, 2006

8 Update on Phytosanitary Standards for Fresh Citrus Dan Richey, Riverfront Packing Company. Chairman Adair advised Mr. Richey had been involved in dealing with canker and greening issues with California growers in hopes of avoiding a quarantine of Florida citrus. Mr. Richey recapped on January 10, 2006, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Connor sent a letter to Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles Bronson declaring canker eradication programs and funding were being discontinued. Mr. Richey stated from that point forward, members of the citrus industry had been trying to craft through the Citrus Health Response Plan (CHRP) on how to deal with the issues and go forward, not just for Florida but for the entire United States, and had been working with a number of officials in Washington at both the state and federal level. He thought as of right now Florida was safe in being able to move products to non-citrus producing states, plus Japan and Canada this coming season. Mr. Richey clarified this meant all states except California, Arizona, Texas and possibly Louisiana and Alabama. Mr. Richey continued that the European Union and the citrus producing states were the ones that would be a battle. He explained the pest risk assessment published by the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) within two or three months of the end of the canker eradication effort basically stated that asymptomatic fruit showing no symptoms or lesions were not a vehicle for spreading of the disease. Mr. Richey was hoping this could be vetted and put in place for the 2007/2008 season, which would then allow Florida to ship asymptomatic fruit anywhere in the world with no restrictions. Mr. Richey talked about the politics connected with trade in other states and countries. Mr. Richey indicated there was not a lot that could be done at the County level since this was a global issue in the hands of the USDA, who would probably make a decision to quarantine the entire state and allow us to ship only to non-citrus producing states. A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Banack brought up the fact there was no incentive for owners to push abandoned groves. Chairman Adair noted Commissioner Davis was Chairman of the County s Value Adjustment Board (VAB) and perhaps they should be stricter when it came to allowing abandoned groves to remain as agricultural land. AGCOM-Approved 8 May 25, 2006

9 Commissioner Davis pointed out the VAB hired a mediator to make the decisions and the Board approved or disapproved his decision. Mr. Richey stated in order to qualify for the $500 million hurricane relief funds a grower was required to show he had marketed his fruit for the previous two years. He thought perhaps if there was a dispute the VAB could ask a bona fide agricultural entity to produce a receipt for sale of his commodity for the last two years. A discussion ensued. Chairman Adair felt comfortable recommending this to the BCC because there was an ability to do that within State Statute FS , Item 7. Mr. Kromhout suggested including the option of an owner addressing agricultural practices or inputs into the grove, such as fertilizers, mowing, irrigation, etc. Commissioner Davis thought it was more important to have trees removed from abandoned groves than it was to inspect those groves and said he would be in favor of giving an owner a $50.00 exemption if they would remove their trees. Chairman Adair thought there might be a problem with that because there may not be canker in the grove, but if a developer owned the property he might remove the trees and then put the property into a holding pattern for future development with no intention of using it for agriculture. A discussion followed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. AGCOM-Approved 9 May 25, 2006