Regional Foodlands Access Program

Feasibility Study and Business Case

SUPPORTING APPENDICES

Submitted by Upland Agricultural Consulting To Capital Regional District August 2018

---

Table of Contents

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................ i Conversion Units .............................................................................................................................................. i Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... iii A1: Examples of Foodland Access Tools............................................................................................. iii A2: Stakeholders and Community Partnerships ............................................................................... v A3: Land Acquisition Mechanisms and Land Tenure ...................................................................... x A4: Existing Foodlands in the CRD...................................................................................................... xv A5 Foodlands Access Program Staff Needs.................................................................................... xvi A6 Foodlands Access Infrastructure and Operations Cost Estimates ..................................... xix A7: Foodlands Access Program Revenue Discussion and Calculations................................ xxiv A8: Potential Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... xxix A9 Indicators for Success ..................................................................................................................... xxx

---

Acronyms

• ALC: Agricultural Land Commission
• ALR: Agricultural Land Reserve
• BC: British Columbia
• BCA: BC Assessment
• CAC: Community Amenity Contribution
• COCS: Cost of Community Services
• CRA: Canada Revenue Agency
• CRD: Capital Regional District
• CRFAIR: Capital Region Food and Agriculture Initiatives Roundtable
• FTE: Full-time equivalent
• GCL: Garden City Lands
• KPU: Kwantlen Polytechnic University
• NGO: Non-governmental organization
• RFAS: Regional Food and Agriculture Strategy
• TLC: The Land Conservancy
• UBC: University of British Columbia

Conversion Units

• 1 acre = 0.40 hectares
• 1 hectare = 2.47 acres

While both area units are used in this report, acres are used primarily within the discussion of lease rates.

---

Appendices

A1: Examples of Foodland Access Tools

Food and Farmland Trusts:

• Foodlands Cooperative of BC
• Farmland Trust Society (Greater Victoria)
• Bourgoyne (Salt Spring Island)
• Sooke Farmland Trust Society

Public Land Banks:

• The City of Zurich has used the green space management department to combine the responsibilities of land use planning, agriculture, and nature conservation. The department owns 500 ha (1200 acres) of farmland and leases to, or operates, a total of 10 farms¹.

Land-Connecting Services:

• L’ARTERRE, Québec (province wide program)²
• FarmLINK.net (national program)³
• FarmableNOW (local program in Surrey, BC)⁴
• Young Agrarians Umap and Land Matching Program, BC (province wide program)⁵

Incubator Farms:

• Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) Incubator Program The Incubator Program is an integral part of the KPU Farm School Program. While it is not mandatory for students to participate, it is highly recommended as students can apply all the knowledge and skills that they have learned in the associated farm school. Nearly all alumni who have since purchased farmland have completed 3 years of incubator farming. Upon completion of the school program, students are eligible to access up to 0.5 acre of land to start their own farm businesses in the incubator program. For a minimal fee, students can choose a plot on either of the farm school sites (Richmond and Tsawwassen). It is ideal for aspiring farmers to start their businesses, create their own network and their markets. Applicants must submit a business proposal that outlines their business goals and visions, market research, financial goals, production goals and marketing plan. Incubator plots are only available to graduates of either the Tsawwassen or Richmond Farm School programs. Incubator farmers get access to:
  • 1/4 to 1/2 acre of arable land for up to 3 years
  • Communal tool share
  • Communal infrastructure
  • Technical and mentorship support from teachers, farm staff, and other incubator farmers
  • City water

Farm Tax Policies:

• Italy: As of 2017, Italy abolished all income tax for professional farmers. Designation of professional farmer requires that one spends at least 50% of work time and gets at least 50% of income from agricultural activity, and has farming expertise.
• Michigan, USA: Farmers receive a tax rebate if they can demonstrate that over half of their land has been farmed for the last 10 years.

Restrictions on Farmland Ownership:

• Prince Edward Island (PEI): Non-residents of PEI cannot own more than 5 acres of farmland and the province collects and reports on farmland ownership data. PEI’s land identification program dates back to 1988 and requires non-residents and corporations to register with the province when acquiring aggregate farmland holdings⁶. Applications are also publicly accessible online. Collected data includes the purchaser’s name, state/province, country (of residence) and intended land use.

Lease Agreement Restrictions:

• Belgium and France⁷: The minimum farmland lease terms in Belgium and France are 9 years, but longer terms up to 99 years exist. Tenants have the rights to purchase their rented land in case of land sale. Land rental prices may be controlled using a formula that is linked to farm income from the parcel, or linked to a state-set land price index.

---

¹ Source: Schmid, O., & Jahrl, I., 2014. WP2 final case study report: City region of Zurich (Switzerland). Frick, Switzerland: FiBL Switzerland and SUPURBFOOD Project. ² Arterre: Faciliter l’acces au monde agricole: https://www.arterre.ca/ ³ FarmLINK: https://farmlink.net/about/ ⁴ FarmableNOW: http://farmablenow.ca/ ⁵ Young Agrarians Farmland and Land Access Tools: http://youngagrarians.org/tools/land/ ⁶ Prince Edward Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission, 2017. LPA applications databank. http://www.irac.pe.ca/land/data/ ⁷ EEIG Agrosynergie, 2013. Evaluation of the structural effects of direct support; Chapter 4 Review of national legal and institutional frameworks. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/structuraleffects-direct-support-2013_en

---

A2: Stakeholders and Community Partnerships

The following stakeholders were contacted for their input into this report:

• ALM Farms
• BC Farm and Ranch Realty
• Close to Home Organics in Langley
• CR-FAIR
• District of Saanich
• Engineering Department, Central Saanich
• Engineering Department, Saanich
• Farm Credit Canada
• FarmFolk/CityFolk
• Fieldstone Garlic Farms
• Foodlands Cooperative of BC
• Gobind Farms
• KPU’s Richmond Farm School
• KPU’s Tsawwassen Farm School
• Lohbrunner Farm
• Metro Vancouver Planning
• Metro Vancouver Parks
• Peninsula and Area Agricultural Commission
• Sooke Farmland Trust
• Tsartslip FN
• UBC Farm
• University of the Fraser Valley
• Young Agrarians

Potential Indigenous Partnerships

Organizations and working groups associated with Indigenous food systems and food security within the region include (but are not limited to):

• WSÁNEĆ School Board (ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ Tribal School)
• Tsartlip Health Centre
• SeaChange Marine Conservation Society (the society also works on land-based programming)
• PEPÁKEN HÁUTW (“Blossoming Place”, a native plant and nursery garden)
• Saanich Native Plants Nursery and Consulting
• Indigenous Food Systems Network (Working Group on Indigenous Food Sovereignty)
• T'Sou-ke Nation Ladybug Garden & Greenhouse
• Salish Wolf Healing Centre
• Project Reclaim
• Community Tool Shed at Songhees First Nation
• Pacheedaht Nation’s Seafoam Seafoods Co.

Examples of Foodland Access and Community Partnerships

Example: Loutet Park Urban Farm, North Vancouver This urban farm is located within a municipal park in North Vancouver. The land use licence is arranged between the City of North Vancouver and the North Shore Neighbourhood House, which is a non-profit society. The Neighbourhood House uses a portion of the lands to grow produce as a fundraising enterprise. All the profits from the produce sold is returned and reinvested into Neighbourhood House programming. Their activities fall under the name of the “Edible Garden Project”, which is one program of the North Shore Neighbourhood House. Most of the farming staff are paid through grants. The Neighbourhood House also manages an education program on at Loutet Park. There is an education coordinator and part-time staff that are dedicated to touring school children and day cares and holding public workshops on the farm.

Example: Fresh Roots, Metro Vancouver Fresh Roots is a non-profit organization working with educational communities towards cultivating engaging gardens and programs that catalyze healthy eating, ecological stewardship, and community celebration⁸. Fresh Roots is the first organization to help establish schoolyard market gardens in Canada. In addition, the organization fosters leadership and employment training through food literacy professional development for BC’s educators, manages a summer day camp for youth, and runs a 7 week summer leadership and empowerment program called SOYL. The program teaches high school students how to cultivate and manage ½ acre farms and develop skills in growing, cooking, and selling food. Fresh Roots is also working in partnership with the Delta School district, on a program called Farm Roots. This is an innovative, one of a kind school that directly links students to the multifaceted agricultural industry. While earning dual credits towards high school graduation and graduation from Kwantlen Polytechnic University, students design, plan and build a learning farm on 8 acres.

Example: Sole Food Street Farms, Vancouver Sole Street Farms is wholly owned by the Cultivate Canada Society, a registered charity established to demonstrate and interpret connections between farming, land stewardship, and community well being; to model the economic and social possibilities for small and medium scale urban and rural agricultural and forestry projects, to address disparities in access to healthy food and the knowledge to produce it, and to nurture the human spirit through public programs, classes, and events. During the past seven years, Sole Food Street Farms, based in Vancouver, is North America’s largest urban farm project. Since 2011 it has worked with the City of Vancouver to identify vacant or underutilized lands and has transformed them into street farms. The initiative provides jobs, agricultural training, and has empowered dozens of residents of Vancouver’s downtown eastside with meaningful employment. The farms produce twenty-five tons of food annually, supplying Vancouver’s top restaurants and farmers’ markets⁹.

Example: Richmond Sharing Farm, Richmond In 1996, voters approved the City of Richmond to borrow $28.5 million to purchase 63-acres of privately owned land, made up of small farms. The City began to acquire properties including Terra Nova Rural Park which is a unique, picturesque 63- acre site located in the northwest corner of Richmond. Many partners are involved in the delivery of programs at Terra Nova with all non-profit groups having operating agreements with the City. Almost all of the organized activities in the park are through community partners. These community groups create an environment that recognizes the value of farming and fresh food, healthy eating habits, urban wildlife appreciation and social responsibility. One partner of several years, The Sharing Farm, manages a 3-acre farm in the park. This group offers educational programs, fruit and vegetable markets, seed exchanges, community dinners and food festivals on-site. In addition, this group harvests approximately 10,000 pounds of fruit and vegetables annually for donation to the local food bank and community meal programs helping members of the community who are food insecure.

Example: Newman Farm – The Farmlands Trust Society (Greater Victoria) This society manages land for food production (mostly charitable) on Central Saanich public lands. They have a MOU with Tsawout First Nation that “recognizes the mutual respect and interest of bringing together both First Nations and Western approaches to food security on the Saanich Peninsula¹⁰”. In the past, events have been held together with the Society and the Nation. A First Nations Outreach Committee develops and implements initiatives that integrate First Nations’ interests and knowledge in the management of agricultural corridor lands and promotes awareness and interest in Greater Victoria food security and works to encourage understanding of the FLT activities and encourage participation and support.

Example: UBC Farm – Indigenous Health Research and Education Garden¹¹ Part of the UBC Farm is dedicated to Indigenous food growing and learning. With an emphasis on teaching, community engagement, and research, the garden aims to serve the educational and research needs related to Indigenous knowledge and its intersections with other ways of knowing and praxis. Garden Programming and initiatives are particularly focused on food security, traditional plant knowledge, and land-based pedagogies while increasing participants’ knowledge and access to both traditional and non-traditional plants uses. The garden is guided by the principle that ‘food is medicine’ and follows the research ethic framework of the “4R’s: respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility” and a holistic understanding of health and healing. In addition to its international, community-based research, the garden engages with numerous regional Aboriginal schools, communities, and organizations.

Example: Kwantlen Polytechnic University – Tsawwassen First Nation Farm School The Tsawwassen Farm School is a collaboration between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. The school fuses sustainable agriculture and traditional indigenous food systems as tools to build community and create dialogue around land stewardship for the future. The school program is open to all with curiosity to learn how to feed a growing population while restoring the land. The program takes place at a 20-acre certified organic working farm on traditional Tsawwassen First Nation lands. The farm boasts a traditional medicine garden, a mixed fruit orchard, a market garden, livestock including chickens, pigs and ducks, and incubator plots on which program graduates can launch their farm businesses. The farm is a gathering place to learn about human-scaled alternative food production systems¹².

---

⁸ Fresh Roots Non-Profit Organization. http://freshroots.ca/ ⁹ Sole Food Street Farms. http://solefoodfarms.com/ ¹⁰ The Farmlands Trust (Greater Victoria): Partners. http://farmlandstrust.org/our-partners-1/ ¹¹ UBC: xwćićesem: Indigenous Health Research and Education Garden at UBC Farm: http://lfs-iherg.sites.olt.ubc.ca/ ¹² Tsawwassen First Nation Farm School: http://www.kpu.ca/tfnfarm

---

Table A1. Potential partnering organizations for a foodlands access program.

---

A3: Land Acquisition Mechanisms and Land Tenure

Various options exist for land acquisition within the public sector, including using land already owned, obtaining amenity contributions from developers, donations of land, and outright purchase of land. Each has advantages and drawbacks, and are described below.

The methods by which farmland trusts and public land banks acquire land vary. Some farmers who are retiring and want their land to continue to be farmed may choose to donate or bequest their land, for example. In other cases funds can be raised to purchase farmland through campaigns (e.g. Madrona Farm), private donations, or from foundations. Governments may also fund the acquisition of lands via tax levies, development/amenity fees, or out of general revenue, with any such funds potentially being placed in a dedicated Foodlands Conservation Fund or Agriculture Legacy Fund. As well, land acquisitions can be supported by issuing shares in the land bank, or via the lease and sale revenues generated by the foodlands access program.

Table A2. Program Approaches Roles of Local Government and Partners.

Land Already Owned/Operated by Local Government

The lowest cost means of land acquisition is to identify and use land that is already owned by local government. This land may be sitting idle or currently used for another purpose. The cost of ownership is already being borne by the local government, including payment of property taxes, property insurance and some degree of maintenance on the property. Depending on the current use, available infrastructure and current maintenance costs, it may be possible to switch to agricultural use for little or no cost.

Three parcels of land have already been identified within the CRD for possible agricultural use:

• Maber Flats in Central Saanich, ~10 acres
• Panama Flats, Saanich, 56 acres
• Sandown, North Saanich, 95 acres

These parcels total approximately 160 acres. An assessment will need to be conducted to determine the suitability of these and any future identified parcels for food production and identify infrastructure requirements in order to prepare the sites for agricultural use.

Community Amenity Contributions

Community Amenity Contributions (CAC) are a low cost means of land acquisition. They are donations made by developers as part of development and rezoning proposals, in order to mitigate some of the impact of new developments or offset any real or perceived negative impacts of the development. Often the amenity contributions may be made in exchange for allowing a rezoning or other concessions in exchange for the land contribution. As such, they are not completely without cost, but there is little, if any, cash outlay required and the benefit to the community may be substantial. The municipality will be responsible for future costs, such as maintenance, property tax and insurance.

Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are agreed to by a developer and local government as part of a rezoning process initiated by the developer¹³. CACs are usually obtained through voluntarily negotiated contributions at the time of rezoning. CACs can include a diversity of amenities such as affordable housing, child care, infrastructure, recreation facilities and importantly can include amenities that Development Cost Charges (DCCs) cannot be applied towards. The extension of DCCs to farmland acquisition would require legislative change whereas CACs can currently include farmland. Local governments have the authority to negotiate CCs with developers but are not legislative requirements and cannot be imposed by government. Recently, the donation of Sandown Farm in North Saanich was included as part of a CAC, therefore precedence already exists within the region for this type of farmland acquisition.

Donations and Gifts

In Canada, the main method of donating land to local governments is through an “eco-gift”, which is a donation of land or an interest in land (e.g. a conservation covenant) that has been certified as “ecologically sensitive” according to specific national and provincial criteria. The Income Tax Act provides favourable income tax treatment for gifts of ecologically sensitive land and interests in ecologically sensitive land. Land trusts with charitable status may issue tax receipts for donations. This helps attract donations and expands your funding opportunities. The Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for granting charitable tax status to organizations, and the process may take six months to two years. This may be a good reason for a local government to partner with a NGO when developing a land trust model. The NGO (e.g. Farmlands Trust (Greater Victoria) Society) can then issue the tax receipt for the land donation while the trust itself is managed by the local government.

Donations and gifts may be made in order to preserve land for public use and to protect land from development for perpetuity. This may occur in two forms – outright donation of ownership of the land, or through setting up a conservation covenant, allowing the landowner to retain ownership of the land, while ensuring conservation values are protected, even if land is sold in the future. A conservation covenant can be registered against title to the land and be made binding on future property owners¹⁴. A conservation covenant may only be modified in the future if all parties are in agreement, so may not offer the same degree of protection as outright donation of land to a land trust.

Regardless of whether donated outright or through a conservation covenant, generally, donations and gifts are not made without protective covenants in some form associated with them, so there will be acquisition costs of setting up protective covenants, likely survey and appraisal costs, and property transfer tax, in addition to ongoing costs of maintenance, property tax and insurance. Care should be taken to ensure there is no environmental contamination of donated land, which could incur substantial remediation costs. When considering accepting donations or gifts of land, it is essential that the local government consider the costs of acquisition and upkeep, as well as ensuring the land is suitable for the covenanted use and that the property meets identified goals within the region. Donors sometimes pay associated costs, including providing a stewardship endowment¹⁵ to be held in trust in a restricted account to ensure future upkeep of the land.

Fee-simple Purchase

The most expensive option of land acquisition, fee-simple purchase, allows the host organization to identify and choose properties to meet specific goals and objectives identified as desirable. Land may be purchased at market value (which range from $11,900 - $100,000/acre on Vancouver Island, per 2017 FCC Farmland Values Report)¹⁶. In addition to the purchase price, there are also legal fees, property transfer tax and possibly survey costs and environmental assessments associated with purchase of land. Although highest cost, this does allow the most control over what land is acquired, and ensures best suitability for the chosen purpose.

If a local government were to purchase private lands using a fee-simple approach, it would effectively bring privately-held land into public ownership and management. The downside is that fair market value would have to be paid for the land. Due in part to speculation, the market value of agricultural land in Southern Vancouver Island is much higher than its agricultural value. However, as previously discussed, the actual public amenity value of farmland is much higher than market value, therefore the acquisition of private farmland for public benefits remains a worthwhile investment of public funds.

Land Tenure and Farmland

The word “tenure” derives from the Latin word tenir, meaning to hold. With the RFAS recommendation to increase access to agricultural and foodlands, a key challenge lies in addressing the need to have land “held” with long term security to encourage both a diversity of food production activities and an investment into farm infrastructure. Secure tenure of agricultural land enables farmers to invest in this capital to improve land productivity and build an economically viable business. Due to the cost of farmland, outright fee-simple ownership is out of reach for many farmers who are looking to either start producing or expand upon an existing operation. Without secure land tenure, farmers have more difficulty obtaining bank loans and cannot invest in facilities to increase yields and market options. In return, farm tax status provides the main financial benefit, where landowners will receive a property tax exemption.

Leases and Licences

Aside from fee-simple purchase, the most common forms of foodlands tenure are leases and licences. A lease transfers possession of a property or a portion of a property from a landowner to a tenant. A landowner’s rights to actual possession of the land are suspended during a lease. Leasing is more affordable than fee-simple purchases, and it is therefore a strategy used by producers to gain land access and overcome the affordability gap of land ownership. The main downside to leasing is that secure long-term leases are hard to find and therefore there is minimal incentive to invest in infrastructure upgrades to the land (e.g., irrigation, drainage, fencing) is often lacking.

While leases tend to be more commonly used, licences have also been used by other local governments, such as Metro Vancouver in their regional parks, to make public land available to farmers¹⁷. Licences differ from leases in that they cannot be registered on title. They are considered contracts and fall under contract law if they meet certain criteria. 3.2 Land Lease Rates Annual rental rates for agricultural leases on the southern part of Vancouver Island and in the Lower Mainland tend to range from $100/acre/year to $500/acre/year or more (approximately $250/hectare/year to $1,250/hectare/year) and may be calculated based on¹⁸:

• A per acre (or hectare) lease rate based on the BC Assessment agricultural value of the parcel.
• The agricultural capability of the land, including specific soil and water characteristics.
• The type of crop being grown (pasture lands and hay have a lower associated lease rate than vegetables and berries/fruit).
• A proportion of total sales or a set amount per bracket of total sales.
• The total size of the property (as the number of acres/hectares goes up the cost per acre/hectare tends to go down).
• The level of infrastructure upgrades (e.g., cold storage, greenhouses, drainage, irrigation) that have been made to the property.

A more detailed description of lease rates is provided in section 7 and in the Appendix.

Long Term Tenure and Agricultural Land Use

Land tenure is also related to land use. Livestock farmers and ranchers tend to prefer to own the land that their animals reside on, while leasing out additional pasture and rangelands for grazing needs. Unless leased lands include a residential dwelling, it can be challenging for producers to raise livestock. Animals, including poultry, require round-the-clock surveillance, or at least the ability to quickly respond to issues as they arise. A foodlands access program may need to consider that certain types of agricultural production could be limited, depending on the terms associated with the lease arrangements and the level of infrastructure provided. This is further discussed in section 7.

Agricultural activities taking place within a CRD foodlands access program would likely mirror existing regional farm practices. Within the CRD, the majority of farms do not include large numbers of animal livestock, although nearly half do have small poultry operations. The 2016 Agricultural Census indicates the following livestock and poultry data for CRD farms¹⁹:

• 46% include chickens in their operations (average of approximately 300 birds on those farms, which is considered small scale).
• 27% included sheep and/or goats.
• Less than 10% have cows (and only 1% are dairy cows) with an average of 35 cattle (which is considered small scale).
• Less than 5% have pigs.

---

¹³ Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development. 2004. Community Contributions Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability. ¹⁴ Natural Legacies: Your Educational Guide to Conservation in BC. 2017. Land Trust Alliance British Columbia https://ltabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/UP/Natural%20Legacies-%20Conservation%20Covenants%20in%20BC%20-%20Information%20for%20Landowners.pdf ¹⁵ Edmonton & Area Land Trust. 2006. Land Trust Business Plan 2006-2010. https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/Business_Plan.pdf ¹⁶ 2017 FCC Farmland Values Report. 2018. Farm Credit Canada https://www.fcc-fac.ca/fcc/about-fcc/reports/2017-farmland-values-report-e.pdf ¹⁷ In some of Metro Vancouver’s regional parks where there is ALR, portions of the park have been licenced to farm operators over the long term. Farm activities included hay and corn rotations, raspberries, and nursery crops. Examples of these parks include Matsqui Regional Park, Aldergrove Regional Park. D. Sheffield, personal communication. ¹⁸ D. Smith, Young Agrarians, & C. Bodnar, Glen Valley Farm Co-op, personal communication. ¹⁹ Statistics Canada. 2016. Census of Agriculture. Agriculture in Brief: Capital Regional District.

---

A4: Existing Foodlands in the CRD

Newman Farm (Central Saanich): Newman Farm is a multi-generational farm that was run by the Newman family from 1897 to 2011. The land was donated by the family to the Municipality of Central Saanich for public parkland use in 2011. A lease agreement exists between the District of Central Saanich and the Farmlands Trust (Greater Victoria) Society, which is responsible for the management of all activities on public land.

Haliburton Farm (Saanich): Haliburton Farm was purchased by the District of Saanich from the CRD in response to community request for the municipality to preserve the agricultural uses of the land. The land is leased to the Haliburton Community Organic Farm Society and managed by a volunteer board of directors, which in turn coordinates rental agreements to farmers on the land. Haliburton consists of multiple independent farm businesses sharing the land. Farmers rent sections of land for 4 years with an option to renew. Haliburton Farm provides an example of an existing lease template between a municipality and a non-profit society and has an established farmer application process and rental agreements that can be used as templates in future initiatives.

Madrona Farm (Saanich): Farmers leasing land at Madrona Farm in Saanich’s Blenkinsop Valley were concerned that the land would be sold and developed after the landowner passed away. A community fundraising campaign was launched and The Land Conservancy (TLC) successfully purchased the property and placed it into a trust. Madrona Farm is managed in partnership with the Farmlands Trust (Greater Victoria) Society and is leased to the Chambers family, who operate an organic farm on the land. Since the TLC discontinued its farmlands trust program in 2012 there has been a lack of organizational capacity to hold and manage farmland in the region.

Burgoyne Farm (Salt Spring Island): The Salt Spring Island Farmland Trust Society was formed in 2009 to promote agriculture on the island. As a charitable organization, it acquires, manages, and leases land for farming. The Burgoyne Valley Community Farm is a 60 acre parcel within the ALR that has been farmed for over 100 years. The property was transferred from a developer to the society as a community amenity contribution as part of a rezoning application for a property in Fulford Harbour. Leases are available to farmers on up to 10 acres of land.

Welland Community Orchard (View Royal): This orchard was donated to the Town of View Royal after the landowner passed away. Welland Orchard is managed by a non-profit society, LifeCycles, who leases the land from the Town of View Royal. The site is used for a variety of community benefits, including education, community gardens, and food production.

Lohbrunner Farm: Joseph and Norma Lohbrunner bequeathed their land to TLC using a legal agreement called a life estate. After Joseph passed away, Norma was able to continue to live on the land. TLC held title to the property, known as Lohbrunner Farm, and assumed responsibility for land taxes, maintenance of the exterior of the house, and management of the land. In 2012 TLC The Land Conservancy officially folded as an organization. The land was transferred to FarmFolk/CityFolk, who manages a long term lease for farmers to produce food on the land, which will be held in perpetuity for agriculture and bird habitat protection.

There are additional parcels of land publicly held and within the CRD. These include:

• Maber Flats, Central Saanich (9-10 acres): Maber Flats is an agricultural area that floods seasonally and is an important over-wintering and foraging area for waterfowl. Agricultural uses are found alongside second growth forest. Central Saanich is taking steps to address flooding on this property.
• Panama Flats, Saanich (56 acres): This privately-owned farmland was purchased by the District of Saanich. It is now publicly owned land with potential for food production, partly within the ALR and partly outside of the ALR. The land is also a floodplain and any agricultural development will need to carefully consider drainage infrastructure.
• Sandown, North Saanich (95 acres): Sandown was acquired by the District of North Saanich from a developer as a community amenity contribution, in exchanges for a rezoning application approval.

---

A5 Foodlands Access Program Staff Needs

Staffing

Based on staffing at successful foodlands access programs (La Plate-forme agricole de L’Ange-Guardien in Quebec²⁰; Sharing Farm Society²¹ in Richmond, BC; and Intervale Center in Vermont²²), a full-time program manager and a part-time farm caretaker would be recommended to start with, whether the program is hosted by a local government or an NGO. This level of staffing would likely suffice for up to approximately 32 hectares (80 acres) of land in total. This land may be comprised of several parcels in the range of 4 to 8 hectares (10–20 acres; e.g., Maber Flats) or as a single large parcel (e.g., Sandown). The program manager would be in charge of the program itself, while the part-time farm caretaker would be in charge of the use of land and the maintenance of infrastructure. These are further described below.

• Role of Program Manager The program manager would be a full-time position, with responsibilities including: managing (and raising) funding, providing outreach to partner organizations, communicating with other partner groups, developing annual reports, managing the program advisory committee, developing public outreach events, and assisting with the selection of farmers. The program manager may also be responsible for attending conferences, workshops, or other professional events to promote the incubator foodlands access program and learn from other leaders.
• Role of Farm Caretaker The farm caretaker would be a part-time position, and responsibilities will depend somewhat on the skill set of the person who is hired. Ideally, the farm caretaker would have a strong background in agriculture and would be interested in farming. Main responsibilities would involve oversight of day-to-day operations, such as plowing and water scheduling, assisting in troubleshooting problems with infrastructure (irrigation, fencing), coordinating tool and equipment sharing, providing tours and participating in public outreach events. The farm caretaker would visit the sites on a rotating basis and the overall part-time work would likely be full time (4 to 5 days a week) during summer months and part time (1 to 2 days a week) during winter months.

Dispute Resolutions

An effective land use protocol and lease agreement used for the foodlands access program should help to minimize disputes. For example, the Foodlands Cooperative of BC works to include language around dispute resolution in their lease agreements²³. A mediation process is described within the agreement, though conflict mitigation is a priority so that disputes do not escalate. Cooperative models, or those that use consensus-based decision-making, usually generate the least conflict. If a dispute needs to be resolved, it can be brought to the Program Advisory Committee that oversees the foodlands access program.

Farmer Selection Criteria

Farmer selection will need to be based upon a clear and transparent process. The foodlands access program advisory committee will need to articulate what information they require candidates to submit. It is recommended that the the farmer selection criteria be established based on input from the program advisory committee. A key consideration will be regarding the proposed agricultural land use and how it best suits the specific land parcel that is available. For instance, haying may be more appropriate to large parcels with moderate soil capability, while intensive vegetable or berry production may be more suited to smaller parcels with good soil capability.

Once the selection criteria have been established, it is recommended that the application process include the following steps:

1. Call for applications.
2. Opportunity for prospective farmers to visit the property and ask questions.
3. Business plan presentation to the program advisory committee.
4. Interviews by the program advisory committee.
5. Follow-up meetings with top prospects.
6. Land tenure contract negotiation.

The application process may include a request for the following information:

• Detailed description of agricultural experience and/or education.
• Knowledge of sustainability practices and description of how they fit with proposed business.
• Description of alignment with indigenous food system restoration goals;
• Experience working in a cooperative/collaborative environment.
• Business plan and value proposition, alignment with the parcel’s agricultural capability.
• Availability for onsite non-farming activities, such as community-based programming.
• References.

Due to the unique nature of the foodlands access program, potential members should demonstrate an interest and willingness to engage in practices that adhere to Indigenous food system restoration goals. Farmers will also be encouraged to engage with members of the public.

---

²⁰ Plate-forme agricole de L’Ange-Guardien, Quebec. http://www.demarretafermebio.com/?lang=en ²¹ The Sharing Farm Society, Richmond, BC. http://www.sharingfarm.ca ²² Intervale Center, Vermont. http://www.vtfarmtoplate.com/organization/intervale-center#.W1Tkmi3My8o ²³ Heather Pritchard, Foodlands Cooperative of BC, personal communication.

---

A6 Foodlands Access Infrastructure and Operations Cost Estimates

Fencing

Due to the prevalence of deer and other wildlife, fencing will likely be required to protect crops (including grains, vegetables, and berries), as well as poultry. If livestock is present then fencing will be required both to keep the animals secure on site and to deter predators. It is recommended that deer fencing (8 feet high) be installed around the perimeter of all vegetable crops. It is further recommended that electric fencing be installed around berry crops, fruit trees, honeybees, and laying hens (if applicable). This will be a fairly large investment in infrastructure that benefits the farmer, and should be reflected within the associated lease rates. For an average acre of farmland, the cost of fencing is expected to be approximately $2,400 (Table 4).

Irrigation

Irrigation water sources may include municipal water, well water, or surface water depending on the individual land parcel in question. There may also be a need to investigate possible alternative irrigation sources, such as rainwater collection. Whenever possible, irrigation hookups should be provided by the local government, however, each farmer shall be responsible for basic equipment, such as drip tape, sprinklers, and hoses. It is recommended that lease agreements include commitments to using high-efficiency irrigation equipment and water metering, if possible. Washing station(s) hooked up to a municipal water source for safe washing of produce would be a great asset, especially if there will be a retail component on site. Irrigation costs vary widely. In order to provide a range of estimates, one of the most expensive options is included in Table 4 (two well heads drilled 100 feet deep each), which would come to about $20,000, along with one of the most affordable options, municipal water at a farm rate. If municipal water is used for irrigation, there is a cost rebate from the CRD associated with the water, so long as the parcel has Farm Tax Classification Status as conferred by BC Assessment. For example, Haliburton Farms spends less than $300 per year on water after the farm rebate²⁴. If the foodlands access program is initiated, it would be worthwhile to explore how this rebate could be regarded as an in-kind investment into the foodlands access program by the CRD.

Drainage

Once land is identified as being available for inclusion in a foodlands access program, it is assumed that a drainage system would be put in place by the host organization prior to, or during, the first year of operation. This will be a large capital expenditure (between $1,000 and $2,000 per acre), but it is expected to benefit not only farm operators, but also residents and businesses on surrounding lands. Some lands under consideration, such as Panama Flats, have existing drainage that needs to be repaired²⁵. Other lands may have minimal or no drainage installed. Even if the program is managed and operated by an NGO, it is recommended that local government remain in charge of surface drainage infrastructure, such as regional ditch systems, so that it can be consistent with infrastructure on surrounding lands. It is also worth noting that some form of land drainage would likely be required by local government, even without the goal of food production, in order to control flooding. The presence of drainage will be reflected in the associated lease rates.

Human Resources

It is recommended that 1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff be assigned to the management and coordination of the foodlands access program. If a local government-led approach to the foodlands access program is chosen, then employees will be involved in the establishment and maintenance of a trust or land bank to manage the foodlands parcels. If an NGO-led approach is chosen, then local government employees will play more of a minor role, and the NGO staff will lead most of the administrative and operational tasks.

Initial program establishment could involve the services of the local government planning division, financial services, legislative and corporate services, First Nations outreach, engineering, assets and risk management, environmental protection, facilities management, and watershed protection. The staff time commitment and number of employees will depend on location of properties, the number and size of properties, existing infrastructure and amenities on the properties, current zoning, and the expertise and existing knowledge of staff involved. Additional expertise, such as legal counsel, is also recommended.

It is estimated that the establishment of Haliburton Farm (local government–managed non-trust farm property) required approximately $25,000 to $30,000 of District of Saanich staff time, and continues to necessitate an infusion of approximately $15,000 annually over time²⁶. It is estimated that staff costs to establish a trust would be somewhat higher, due to the additional step of establishing the trust and transferring property into the trust. Therefore, an amount of $170,000 for staffing resources has been included in the cost estimates for a local government–led land trust²⁷. Maintenance at Haliburton Farm is done by the NGO leasing the farm (Haliburton Community Organic Farm Society), with very little staff time or expense involved. If the foodlands access program is led by local government, partnering with an existing NGO for management services could reduce the amount of staff-related expenses by about 50–60% (see Table 6). However, the trade-off is that the local government loses a greater level of control over the operational aspects of the program.

Marketing and Promotion

Marketing is key to establishing a successful foodlands access program by advertising the existence of the program itself. Marketing and general communications is also important if land donations are being sought. This type of marketing and promotion would reflect positively on the local government, whether the program is managed entirely by the government or in partnerships with an NGO. However, it will be important not to promote individual farmers or products deriving from the program, as that may raise concerns regarding unfair competitive advantage for farmers who are not members of the foodlands access program.

It is therefore recommended that the local government spend resources on promoting the program itself, and the need for land donations if a trust model is used, rather than the products eventually arising from the farms. Community events and partnerships should be included in the promotional materials, so that the focus is not entirely on food production, but rather on greater public benefits.

If local government creates and manages most of the promotional materials internally with alignment to existing corporate branding, then costs can be kept to a minimum. To provide adequate funds for communication, the marketing budget could be taken as a percentage of the overall project budget (e.g., 3% of total project budget). If partnering with an NGO, costs may be further reduced by using existing communications channels and tools. However, costs will not be eliminated completely. While promotion through a wide variety of channels is expected, a regional land-trust could also tap into the existing wider network of land trusts on Vancouver Island and across BC to help spread promotional materials.

Estimates of costs associated with marketing and promotion include:

• Website: The costs associated with designing and publishing a website with several pages of content and photos could be affiliated with the main CRD website, therefore costs will be fairly low. It is estimated that a webpage will cost approximately $1,500 per year for domain, hosting, content management, and support.
• Social media/Facebook page: If this is contracted out to a media consultant, the cost will be approximately $4,800 per year. This may be reduced if it is handled by an NGO.
• Public relations: This includes press and media releases, interviews, and so on, estimated at $1,000 per year. This may be reduced if handled by an NGO.
• Events: A budget of about $2,000 for a launch event would be a conservative estimate.

Therefore, it is recommended that local government set aside funds for marketing and promotional costs at a level of $5,000 to start and $6,000 per year thereafter.

Insurance

Once an approach to the program is chosen, the existing insurance provider for local government should be consulted to determine whether additional insurance is required. This is recommended whether or not the local government leads the program, or whether or not a land-trust or a land-bank model is selected. Current policies likely exist for local government–owned and –operated properties and facilities, and it is possible that any future lease agreements may be covered by existing policies. However, it will be up to the specific municipalities within which the parcels are located to advise on the insurance they require, the limits of insurance, and the acceptable deductibles. It is important to note that, for insurance purposes, whichever entity owns the land must consider itself a legal entity unto itself, separate from the various community organizations or individuals that may hold future leases on individual properties. If the land is held in a trust, the trust will require specific trustee insurance, separate from the local government insurance policy.

Commercial General Liability insurance, with coverage for third-party injury or damages, will cover the host organization’s (local government or NGO) overall assets in the case of any injury or event that may bring about a claim. Such a policy may also provide coverage for loss of use in the event an incident renders the property unusable for a period of time, impacting the farmer or the organization’s ability to use the land. Errors and Omissions coverage will be required if the entity is providing any professional advice. Property Insurance for Chattel must be in place to provide replacement of any infrastructure lost through a catastrophic event.

Individual or organization-based lease holders should be required, as a condition of their lease, to hold liability and tenants’ insurance through an approved provider. Individual tenants should be required to have adequate insurance to cover their business operations, including general liability coverage.

Interest

Local government borrowing rates for real estate are approximately 4%, but it fluctuates somewhat over the long term (e.g., the short-term rate is under 3%, and by 2020 the rate is expected to be 4.5%)²⁸. It is possible that a referendum would be required to borrow funds for program development (including any potential land acquisition) as this depends on when the capital drawdown is triggered or when it is actually taken out. The need to borrow funds may be reduced or eliminated through other sources of funding, as discussed in section 9.

Borrowing capital may be a viable option for establishment, but it is very risky strategy for satisfying the ongoing operating costs, and is therefore not recommended. Other organizations have found that fundraising events and donation drives have been successful prior to purchase of land, but it can take a long time to raise the sufficient funds²⁹. Furthermore, once land has been purchased, it is difficult to attract additional funds for ongoing administrative and operational needs. As a result, borrowing for land purchase is risky if the intent is to repay the loan with future cash donations or fundraising. It is essential to have a viable repayment plan prior to incurring any debt. For the purposes of this report, it is estimated that $150,000 would be borrowed by local government from a lending agency during the first year to cover capital investments and that it would be paid off over time, resulting in approximately $6,000 of interest per year based on an interest rate of 4% (Table 6). If an NGO leads the program it would be less likely to be able to successfully apply for a large loan and may be required to pay a higher interest rate (5%). Therefore Table 6 also indicates the lower interest payments associated with a smaller $10,000 loan at an interest rate of 5%, if the program is led by an NGO.

Property Taxes

If land currently included in the foodlands access program is classified as farmland, this may reduce property taxes below what is currently payable. Land classified as farmland is also eligible for the provincial farmland tax credit, which reduces the school tax payable by 50%. For new land acquisitions, this can result in significant savings over non-farmland.

Land that is leased to a farmer may qualify for farm class if³⁰:

• The owner applies to have land classified as a farm.
• The owner and lessee enter into a lease agreement.
• The leased land makes a reasonable contribution to the farm operation.
• The lessee (farmer) meets the income and sales requirements.³¹

As it is assumed that foodlands access programs will be established from existing farmland, on which taxes are currently being paid, therefore no additional property taxes will result, and tax savings may even be possible. As a result, property taxes are not included in Table 6.

Examples of Loan Repayment Costs (Interest)

Example: Interest Payments for $500,000 Loan (High End Loan) If a 5 acre parcel of land is purchased at $500,000 and paid for with a 30 year mortgage at 4.5% interest.

• Total monthly payment of interest and principle is $2,521
• Total interest paid over 30 year period $407,589 (an average of $13,586 per year in interest).
• If the entire 5 acres were farmed would require $2,717 per acre (x 5 = $13,586) to cover the interest.
• This could be one way to calculate lease rates, but the amount would be much higher than typical lease rates.

Example: Interest Payments on a $100,000 Loan (Low End Loan)

• $100,000 loan
• 30 years paid quarterly at 4.5% interest
• Quarterly payments of $1,518 or $6,073 per year
• Total interest over 30 years would be $82,192.
• Average interest per year would be $2,740

---

²⁴ Haliburton Farms 2017 Financial Update. District of Saanich Council Minutes March 6, 2018: http://saanich.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=118&meta_id=4371 ²⁵ Eva Riccius, Senior Manager of Parks, District of Saanich. Personal communication. ²⁶ Richard Butler, Property Officer, District of Saanich. Personal communication. ²⁷ Signe Bagh, Senior Manager Regional and Strategic Planning, Capital Regional District. Personal communication. ²⁸ Jeff Weightman, Planner, Capital Regional District. Personal communication. ²⁹ Mary Alice, Sooke Farmland Trust. Personal communication. ³⁰ BC Assessment: Classifying a Farm: fact sheet. https://info.bcassessment.ca/Services-products/property-classes-and-exemptions/farm-land-assessment/farm-classification-in-british-columbia/Apply-for-farm-classification ³¹ BC Assessment: Classifying land leased to farmers: fact sheet. https://info.bcassessment.ca/services-and-products/Pages/Classifying%20Land%20Leased%20to%20Farmers.aspx

---

A7: Foodlands Access Program Revenue Discussion and Calculations

In addition to lease income, funds will be required to cover the expected operational and administrative costs associated with establishing and running the program, in addition to infrastructure improvements and equipment purchase. Program funding opportunities are discussed in this section and include:

• Leases
• Grants
• Donations
• Sponsorships
• Membership fees
• In-kind contributions
• Loans

Other income considerations:

• Business licences may be required by individual municipalities for on-site commercial activities.
• Additional revenue sources (fundraising) could include: on-site farmer’s market booth fees for crafters; seasonal events (e.g., garlic fests); fee-for-service activities, such as workshops, or facility rentals. This will depend somewhat on ALR and local/regional zoning.
• Creating a “friends of CRD Foodlands Program” could further build community engagement for building out a fundraising plan and promotion.
• Local government funds can be used to leverage matching funds from other levels of government, the private sector, and the NGO sector³². For instance, the District of North Saanich has provided a motion of support for a farmland acquisition fund³³. This is further explored in section 10.

A strong diversified funding strategy will be required and options should be considered concurrently.

Lease Rates

Annual lease fees will bring in reliable income to help offset the costs of program operations. Based on current market rates in the area, however, it is unlikely that this will be enough to completely cover program costs. Appropriate lease rates will aim to balance farmers’ ability to pay with the objective of achieving revenue neutrality for the host organization in annual operating costs for lands managed through the foodlands access program.

Based on average lease rates for farmland in the region with drainage, water hookups, and fencing provided, it is reasonable to suggest $400/acre/year to $1,000/acre/year, depending on the quality of the soil and type of agricultural products being cultivated (e.g., marginal pasture and haying lands will lease for lower rates of $50 to $100/acre/year). The other option is to charge a lease rate based on a portion (e.g., 5–10%) of the expected farm product value. The latter method of charging the lease fee may be considered more “fair”, as it will be based on the ability of the farm to bring in positive returns. However, the set fee is more stable, which may be a benefit to both the lessor and the lessee. Both options are detailed in Table 7 for different agricultural activities.

It may be appropriate to increase the set fee and/or the percent of the gross farm income charged, if a wash station, parking, and storage equipment are provided. For context, Haliburton Farm in Saanich rents 1-acre plots for $600 per year and new farmers must purchase existing infrastructure from the previous farmer for about $5,000 to $10,000, and Madrona Farm leases farmland for approximately $5000 per acre per year. See Appendix for additional examples.

Example: Haliburton Farm Lease Rates

• Leases are 5 years and are renewable for another 5 years if approved.
• Leases are not extended beyond 10 years.
• The size of the plots is 1 acre and there are 5 of them.
• Annual rent is $600.
• New farmers purchase the infrastructure and business from the previous farmer. Typically this is around $5,000 to $10,000.
• The board does not have a formula for how much exiting farmers get to charge for their improvements.
• The Haliburton board is responsible for property management.
• The board is not required to make any annual payments to the District of Saanich, who is the owner of the property.

Example: Madrona Farm Lease Rates

• Lease rates are approximately $500 per acre per year
• Farmer members must also share the cost of land taxes
• Price includes land, the farmhouse, barn and out buildings.
• Farmer members are responsible for all maintenance and caretaker work
• Agricultural water rates are an additional $300 per year

Example: Salt Spring Island Farm Land Trust Burgoyne Farm Lease Rates The following are examples of lease rate paid by farmers at Burgoyne Farm. Farmers pay for fencing and all irrigation costs while the land trust pays all other costs such as road repairs, administration, and outhouses.

• 1/3 acre for $200 currently growing medicinal herbs
• 4 acres for $900 in vegetable production
• 5 acres for $1,000 growing garlic seed
• 10 acres for $1,500 for pasture land currently with chicken tractors
• 3.5 acres of community plots of 25 feet by 50 feet @ $40/year

Transfer of Infrastructure Investments

A key component of land ownership that differs from leasing or licensing is that when the farmer leaves the land, their investment (equity) is compensated through the sale of the land. If properly crafted, long-term leases and/or licences can also facilitate the transfer of capital investments in fencing, drainage, and irrigation infrastructure, from one lessee to the next. Typically, the lessee is responsible for improvements, however, in some cases the foodlands access program manager will be responsible.

The lease rate can be adjusted to reflect the level of infrastructure investments that are available at the time that the agreement commences. If, over the course of the term of the lease, the farmer adds value to the operation, it is expected that the yield of crops, and therefore economic return, will also rise based on that investment.

Once the term of the lease expires there are several options:

1. The lessor (e.g., local government and/or NGO) can have the investments (and associated depreciations) assessed by a neutral third party and a lump-sum payment is made to the farmer to buy them out. This payment can later be recouped by the lessor by charging a higher lease rate to the next farmer, in acknowledgement of the increased value of the infrastructure available.
2. The outgoing farmer can sell the infrastructure directly to the incoming farmer.
3. The outgoing farmer can take the infrastructure with them to a new location.
4. A combination of the above can occur.

In order for this investment transfer process to be completed smoothly, it is best if the farmer keeps detailed records and receipts of all land improvement investments. These investment transfer options should be addressed directly within the lease agreement.

Grants

Grants may be available for initial program establishment and capital acquisitions (land, infrastructure and equipment), workshops, and education. However, it can be challenging to find grants that allow the funds to be used to cover staff time, operational costs, core administrative and other ongoing expenses.

The following amounts of grant funding are anticipated (see Table 8):

• If a local government is the lead organization with support from an NGO: $50,000 to establish the program and $10,000 annually thereafter.
• If an NGO is the lead organization with support from local government: $100,000 to establish the program and $50,000 annually thereafter.

Donations

Donations are most likely to be used for equipment or land. Any land donations would need to be accepted by a charitable organization, whereby the land trust approach is used. Attracting donations requires an ongoing marketing campaign and/or fundraising events and donations are not always a reliable source of funding to meet operating expenses, as they may fluctuate with changes in the economy and shifts in public priorities. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, donations are considered a budgetary “bonus”, and no hard figures are presented in the expected revenues for donations.

Sponsorships

Corporate sponsorships either for the entire foodlands access program or for specific partnership programming may be a viable funding opportunity. This could be expressed through cash sponsorships or in-kind support (e.g., donation of a tractor or other equipment). It is not expected that sponsorships would fluctuate much whether the program is being led by local government or an NGO, although sponsorship levels may be higher at the outset of the program because corporations wish to be associated with an innovative program.

It is anticipated that a foodlands access program could garner $50,000 at establishment and $10,000 per year thereafter in sponsorships.

User Fees

Depending on the zoning of the land in question, a number of opportunities may present themselves for hosting events that could incur a user fee. These nominal fees would be charged for the use of the space and/or any equipment or infrastructure. Examples include workshops, gathering events, and outdoor classes.

It is anticipated that a foodlands access program could raise $2,500 per year in user fees.

In-Kind Contributions

This type of support could be provided by hosting a website, providing advertising, supplying meeting-room space, and other overhead and administrative needs. This support could be provided by the local government and/or community partners.

It is anticipated that the program would be able to raise approximately $25,000 per year through in-kind support from local governments as a host organization, or $5,000 per year from an NGO as a host organization.

Loans

A referendum may be needed to borrow any required funds for program development and/or land acquisition. For the purposes of this report, it is estimated that, if the program is led by local government, $150,000 could be borrowed during the first year to cover capital investments and that it would be paid off over time, resulting in approximately $6,000 of interest per year, based on an interest rate of 4%. Major banks and credit unions such as BMO Financial, Vancity, CIBC, RBC, and TD have small-business start-up loans. It is important to note that NGOs would struggle to qualify for a loan of this nature.

The following loan amounts are anticipated:

• Local government as lead organization with support from NGO: $150,000 to establish the program.
• NGO as lead organization with support from local government: $10,000 to establish the program.

---

³² CRFAIR, 2015. Exploring farm and food lands access in the CRD: A Local Government Farmland Trust Approach. Findings Report. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56e5a1d4e321404618f47dc7/t/574d1918b09f953f2982a396/1464670511336/Local+Government+Farmland+Trust+Findings+Report+Final_CRFAIR2015.pdf ³³ District of North Saanich, 2014. Notice of Motion: Regional Farm Trust and Farmland Acquisition Fund. Staff report. https://northsaanich.civicweb.net/document/6629/Rpt%20Farm%20Trust%20and%20Acquisition%20Fund.pdf?handle=B8D4E4F9FE1748FCBCD8D4BF5182B5E4

---

A8: Potential Funding Sources

• Carthy Foundation
• Enterprising Non-Profits
• Epicure Foundation
• Farm to School BC
• Investment Agriculture Foundation
• McConnell Foundation
• McLean Foundation
• Plan H
• Real Estate Foundation
• TD Canada Friends of the Environment Foundation
• Victoria Foundation
• Vancity Community Foundation
• Webster Foundation

---

A9 Indicators for Success

There are several indicators for a foodlands access program that could be tracked to measure success. They are presented here in three phases: pre-program, establishment, and ongoing/annual indicators.

Pre-Program:

• Local government endorsing or accepting report recommendations.
• Local government deciding on an approach.
• Local government meeting with NGOs to discuss partnerships and/or alignments.

Establishment:

• Local government making a public commitment to leading or supporting the program.
• Inclusion of the foodlands access program within the local government budget.
• Local government securing or identifying land for the program in partnership with NGOs (this could be land that is already publicly owned).
• Establishing a program advisory committee.
• Promotion of the new program through marketing and communications.
• Releasing a call for farmer applications.
• Negotiation of lease agreements.

Ongoing/Annual:

• Amount of land brought into production.
• Number of new farmer entrants.
• Amount of food produced.
• Partnerships with community organizations to establish educational programs and events.
• Ability of new entrants to gain skills and graduate out of the program onto other larger plots.

---

Regional Foodland Access Program Feedback

Capital Regional District 625 Fisgard Street, PO Box 1000 Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 1R7 T: 250.360.3000 F: 250.360.3159 www.crd.bc.ca

Municipality providing feedback: __________________________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________

[ ] support CRD operation of a foodlands trust

[ ] willing to participate in funding CRD operation of a foodlands trust

[ ] able to add municipal lands to a CRD-operated foodlands trust (please specify lands to be considered)

Please return this form to: Signe Bagh, Senior Manager Regional and Strategic Planning sbagh@crd.bc.ca or 625 Fisgard Street, P.O. Box 1000, Victoria, BC V8W 2S6 by May 31, 2019.