Part 1: Farm Grants, Farmland Pressure, and Planning Changes — 06/19/2023

The Agricultural Advisory Committee met virtually on the evening of June 19, 2023, with the meeting livestreamed through the County website. The committee moved briskly through opening business, then spent most of the night on one big conversation that kept circling back to the same question: how does the County keep its farm sector supported and its farmland protected while costs rise and planning pressure keeps building.

The chair called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm and confirmed the agenda with a motion from committee member Jackie Burley, seconded by Phil Prinzen. There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. The committee then approved minutes from three previous meetings, with Bill moving the motion and John seconding.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>

Municipal Agricultural Grants and what the applications revealed

The main presentation came from the County Foundation, starting with Dominique Jones, Executive Director. Jones walked the committee through the latest intake of the Municipal Agricultural Grants program, explaining that the most recent round brought in more applications than the available funding could cover. That change forced tougher decisions than in past years, including declining some applications for the first time.

Jones explained how the program is structured around two farm sizes. A small farm was defined as under $75,000 in gross revenue and could receive $1,250. A medium farm was defined as $75,000 to $500,000 gross and could receive $2,000. She also described the application streams used in that intake, including being impacted by COVID 19, an unexpected expense or revenue drop, labor shortage, and projects that contribute positively toward climate change.

One of the biggest points Jones stressed was that the adjudication is blind. Reviewers do not see names, only coded applications like small farm one or medium farm two. That meant decisions were based entirely on what was written in the application, not on who the applicant was or how well known they might be in the community.

Because the committee only sees the process from a distance, Jones raised the idea of adding a modest reporting requirement after funds are issued. The goal would be simple: confirm how the money was used and whether it helped. She also told the committee she had heard feedback from farmers that the grant amounts may feel too small to justify the effort of applying, which opened up the bigger question of whether it is better to support more farms with smaller amounts or fewer farms with larger ones.

Vital Signs data and the warning signs behind the numbers

Anne Van Vlack from the County Foundation followed with highlights from the latest Vital Signs work, pointing committee members to agriculture related data included in the 2022 reporting. Van Vlack said the County had lost over 7,000 acres of cropland between 2011 and 2021, and also noted that the median age of farmers in Prince Edward County is now 59.

She added that 63 percent of farms do not have succession plans, raising concerns about what happens to farmland as owners age out.

Van Vlack also pointed the committee toward the public data resource at pecdata.ca, explaining that local organizations often use it for grant writing, advocacy, and building business cases.

Committee discussion: reporting, fairness, and what the grant should be for

When the floor opened, John raised a practical fairness issue right away. He asked whether anything stops the same farm from receiving funding year after year. Jones responded that this intake was the first time the program faced oversubscription, but she agreed that past funding could become a factor going forward. She explained that the process could still protect blind adjudication by tracking whether an applicant received funding in prior years without naming them, and by distinguishing whether the request is for the same issue or a new project.

Phil Prinzen strongly supported the idea of a short follow up report after grants are issued. He described it as both accountability and a simple way to close the loop, since the funding comes from taxpayers. Prinzen also pushed back on the argument that the grant amount is not worth applying for, suggesting that if someone says it is not worth the time, maybe they do not actually need the program. The chair and Jackie echoed that support for reporting, with the chair adding that he had personally received thank you messages from grant recipients and found those updates genuinely helpful, but that the rest of the committee never gets to see that kind of feedback.

The committee also talked about what categories belong in the grant going forward. Jones flagged that the COVID 19 category might be removed, and asked if other pain points should be added. The chair pointed to the program’s origins after major flooding and said climate and weather related impacts should remain part of the picture because the problem changes year to year.

Jackie Burley added a new idea that quickly caught attention. She tied Van Vlack’s succession planning data to broader planning pressures and raised the possibility of supporting succession planning through the grant program, especially given the cost of legal work. Burley described it as a way to prevent farmland loss, not just support individual farms. Others agreed it was worth exploring, and the chair suggested it could also become something the committee promotes through workshops and outreach.

The committee formally received the combined County Foundation presentation and the Vital Signs material by motion.

Planning pressures and a new working group

Later in the meeting, the committee returned to planning issues, with an update on the proposed changes to the Provincial Planning Statement. John summarized that a proposed policy allowing multiple severances on farm parcels had been withdrawn, but the Ontario Federation of Agriculture still had concerns and the work was continuing.

Staff noted the public commenting period had been extended to August, and that the committee’s earlier request for the mayor to write a letter was still moving ahead, with staff taking time to see if more needs to be added.

From there, the committee moved to something more hands on. Members discussed creating a Planning Working Group to focus on planning issues without triggering quorum concerns. Interest came quickly, and the committee approved the draft terms of reference and appointed Bob Rogers, Jackie Burley, and John Thompson to serve on the group, with the terms of reference to be forwarded to council for final approval.

Work plan and what did not move forward yet

The committee reviewed its work plan and acknowledged one topic that was supposed to be on the table but was not ready: noxious weed education. The chair said he had not heard back from County staff or OMAFRA contacts and did not want to force the issue without information. Committee members agreed it could be pushed to August and treated as a longer term project rather than something rushed in peak season.

With the farm tour coming up in July and no additional urgent items raised, the committee voted to receive the work plan discussion, confirmed the next meeting date as August 21, and adjourned for the night.

Key Takeaways:

1. The County’s farm grant program is getting more competitive, which is pushing the community to think about fairness, follow up reporting, and what public support should look like when the demand exceeds the funding.

   
   

2. Local data is showing real pressure on farmland and farm continuity, including cropland loss and a major gap in succession planning, which is why the committee started talking about farm support as a long term land protection issue, not just a yearly grant.

   
   

3. Planning is still the thread running through everything, and the committee responded by creating a dedicated Planning Working Group so agricultural voices stay organized and ready as provincial planning changes keep moving.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 43:15. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.