Featured speakers include:

• Ferd Hoefner, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
• Bahia Nightengale, Heartland Local Food, with Supervisor Melvyn Houser, Pottawattamie County, Iowa
• Elanor Starmer, USDA

Register for the webinar here.

This webinar is offered as a service to grantees of the federal government’s Sustainable Communities Initiative, NADO members, NACo members, and the broad community of individuals and organizations interested in regional food systems as a strategy for rural economic development.

For more information, contact Stephanie Osborn, sosborn@naco.org or 202.942.4235.

‘The Good Ol’ Days Are Back’

Located in Southwestern Wisconsin near the banks of the Mississippi River, Potosi is known as the state’s “Catfish Capital.”  However, thanks to an innovative and community-led redevelopment project, this town of 700 people is becoming internationally-recognized for another one of its homegrown resources:  locally-brewed beer.

In 2008, after being abandoned for over 30 years, the Potosi Brewery once again began producing beer from its facility on South Main Street.  The newly restored historic site is also now home to the American Breweriana Association’s National Brewery Museum and other attractions, making it a major tourist destination in the region for beer enthusiasts from all over the United States and throughout the world.  During the first year of its reopening, the brewery had around 50,000 visitors from every state and over thirty countries.  In 2012, it is estimated that over 70,000 people passed through the small village to visit the brewery and museum, as well as to enjoy the variety of outdoor recreational opportunities in the area such as swimming, hiking, and fishing.

The Potosi Brewery as it stands today, renovated after it was vacant for three decades. (Photo courtesy of the National Brewery Museum)

Outside the brewery, a large vintage-looking advertisement proudly exclaims:  “Because of you, the good ol’ days are back.”  This sign is not a mere advertising gimmick.  Potosi’s success story truly has been about the village’s citizens coming together as a community to invest and rally behind a long dormant local asset.  While it is the brewery’s product – beer – that gets the headlines and brings in the visitors, Potosi’s accomplishments are rooted in the people of the village who revived and re-branded an important part of their history, embraced historic preservation, and developed a unique business model that has led to its success today.

Potosi’s Rich Brewing History

The Potosi Brewing Company survived the Prohibition era and went on to become the fifth largest brewery in Wisconsin. (Photo courtesy of the Potosi Brewing Company)

The history of beer production in Potosi dates back to 1852 when a small brewery first opened in the village.  During this time, many small Wisconsin towns had a local community brewery or cheese plant to serve residents, farmers, and laborers in the days before refrigeration allowed products to travel great distances.  However, it wasn’t until 1886 when Adam Schumacher bought the brewery and later formed the Potosi Brewing Company with his brothers that the brewery began to reach far beyond southwest Wisconsin.  Unlike many other small breweries, Potosi was fortunate to survive the Prohibition era and would eventually go on to become the fifth largest in the state, selling beer all over the United States.  Until its closing in 1972 due to the high cost of doing business, the Potosi Brewing Company was the primary employer in town for 120 years.  In 1980, the brewery buildings were listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Despite its historic status and importance to the community, the brewery sat vacant and slowly deteriorated, also suffering damages from a fire that broke out in the complex.  For years, it looked as if the buildings would serve only as a dilapidated reminder of Potosi’s prosperous past until 1995 when local artist and woodworker Gary David and his cousin Denis David bought the brewery buildings for the cost of back taxes with the goal of restoring them.

A Local Asset Is Brought Back to Life

Five years later in 2000, renovation efforts expanded to involve the entire community with the establishment of the 501(c)(3) non-profit Potosi Brewery Foundation, modeled after the philanthropic Newman’s Own Foundation.  Upon its creation, the Foundation’s goals included renovating the brewery and ensuring it would be a “self-sustaining entity,” helping to “reconnect the community to a part of its cultural heritage,” and making the complex a tourist attraction and educational center highlighting Potosi and the greater region.  In 2001, the 28,000 square-foot brewery complex was donated to the Foundation which organized the redevelopment and funding efforts that would eventually culminate with the brewery’s grand reopening in June 2008.

Local businesses in the area all complement each other by providing lodging, retail, and event space. Click the picture to enlarge.  (Photo created using Google Earth)

The $7.5 million restoration project was funded from a variety of federal, state, and private sources.  As part of the USDA’s Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, the federal government backed a $2.6 million loan which was extended by the Mound City Bank.  Additional development costs were then guaranteed by another USDA loan of $660,000.  The project also received a total of $849,000 from the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byways Program.  State historic preservation challenge grants, transportation enhancement grants, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) brownfields grants for assessment and cleanup of the buildings provided a large part of the initial funding.  In February 2010, the Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC) made a $75,000 loan from its EDA Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) for additional expansion.  “Small towns like Potosi know that the only way to pull off projects like this is to seek funding from a variety of sources,” explains Linda Hanefeld, a project manager with the Wisconsin DNR.  The Foundation was able to raise five million dollars for the project, and is currently making steady progress in paying off the remaining loans.

A Visit to the Brewery

The National Brewery Museum, located at the Potosi Brewery, contains exhibits featuring historic beer bottles, cans, glasses, as well as other memorabilia and artifacts.  (Photo courtesy of the National Brewery Museum)

In 2004, the Potosi Brewery Foundation received a major boost to its redevelopment efforts when the brewery was chosen by the American Breweriana Association (ABA), an organization of beer historians, collectors, and preservationists, to be the home of the National Brewery Museum.  “It is a facility that Milwaukee, St. Louis, and others were trying to land, but here it is in Potosi,” says village president Frank Fiorenza, who has also been on the brewery’s board of directors since 1999.  “Landing a national museum with more than $2.5 million of artifacts changed the scope of things.”  The museum, managed by both the ABA and the Foundation, features historic beer bottles, cans, and glasses, as well as other memorabilia and artifacts displayed in both permanent and changing exhibitions.  The museum also houses the ABA’s Brewery Research Library which is open to the public.  In addition to the National Brewery Museum, the brewery has two other museums – a transportation museum and an Interpretive Center highlighting the historical and economic importance of the nearby Mississippi River.

Visitors to the brewery complex have a variety of entertainment and retail options while on the grounds.  These include a restaurant and outdoor beer garden which often serves meats, cheeses, and produce from area farms.  The restaurant’s handcrafted wood bar was made by artist Gary David, whose original vision helped spark the revitalization of the brewery after he first purchased the grounds.  A gift shop and art gallery showcasing work from local artists are located across the street from the brewery.  Potosi’s population swells in the summer with the annual Potosi BrewFest which attracts beer enthusiasts for beer and wine tastings, food, music, and tours.

A Local and Regional Economic Impact

“The brewery project was never an end in itself,” notes Potosi’s Fiorenza, who was instrumental in seeking funding for the project.  “I always saw it as a catalyst for additional economic development in the village.”  In its four years of operation, the brewery has provided a major economic boost to Potosi, creating 70 direct jobs and showing consistent financial returns from an increase in beer and merchandise sales.  2012’s beer sales are 13% higher than the previous year.  The restaurant has seen a 7% sales increase and gift shop sales are up 5% as many of the 70,000 visitors to the brewery have opted to bring home a reminder of their visit to Potosi.  The brewery now has ten distributors in Wisconsin, three in Iowa, and four in Illinois.

Importantly, the brewery’s economic impact reaches far beyond its location on South Main Street.  A 2009 Economic Impact Assessment written by the Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission with additional research from the Grant County Economic Development Corporation found that the brewery had a $4.3 million impact on the region, generated by wages, beer and merchandise sales, and additional tourist revenue.   The study recognized the importance of local volunteers in supporting the brewery’s business model, noting that “[t]he organization is volunteer-driven and it would not likely have the impact it has had without those efforts.”  A new report is expected to be conducted soon which will likely show an even greater impact as the brewery has expanded its operations and seen an increase in visitors since the 2009 report.  Frank Fiorenza believes that a key part of the brewery’s success as a redevelopment project is that there was a long-term economic vision in addition to the historic preservation element.  “We had a product to sell – a beer with a recognized name. What is restored has to have some business component built into it so that it becomes self-sustaining.  A revenue-generating aspect has to be part of the restoration process to pay its own way,” he advises.

The Holiday Gardens Event Center, located across the street from the brewery, hosts a variety of special events and wedding receptions.  (Photo courtesy of the Holiday Gardens Event Center)

The brewery is closely interconnected with other thriving local businesses in Potosi which creates wider economic development for the village.  Prior to the brewery’s reopening in 2008, the Holiday Gardens Event Center and Pine Point Lodge both opened up nearby.  Holiday Gardens, located across the street from the brewery, hosts a variety of special events and wedding receptions throughout the year, serving about 18,000 guests annually.  “Many of our brides and grooms have their rehearsal dinner at the brewery and visit there on the day of their receptions,” says owner and manager Sharon Bierman, who runs Holiday Gardens with her family.  “We also keep Pine Point Lodge and the Potosi Inn booked for their rooms with wedding party members and out-of-town guests.”  The Pine Point Lodge was built a year before the brewery was completed and features four fully-furnished rental cabins near the Mississippi River.  Owner Mark Bode and manager Julie Oyen recognize the value of all the businesses in the area providing compatible services.  “We all have a part in making this work.  The efforts of the brewery, Holiday Gardens Event Center, the art gallery, and others all play an important role to make it all work for the good of our community and town,” says Oyen.

‘It Takes Patience and Persistence’

Potosi’s ability to turn a distinctive local asset into a world-class destination is due in large part to the Potosi Brewery Foundation implementing creative strategies that have embraced historic preservation, the tourism industry, innovative financing, and an effective non-profit business model.  Potosi has also benefited from additional local advantages.  “We have the Mississippi River at our doorstep, beautiful four-season scenery, friendly people, and great beer,” notes Sharon Bierman of Holiday Gardens.  Frank Fiorenza understands the unique nature of the project his town has undertaken and recognizes that not every small community has the assets or willpower to do so.  “I would like to believe that it can be [replicated elsewhere], but it takes a commitment and dedication of time that is not always easy to find.  It takes patience and persistence.  It takes community support.  It takes the right people to organize and spearhead efforts,” he says.  “Not every community has an historic building that can be restored, but perhaps there is a non-profit enterprise that can be supported to advance economic vitality.”

“Because of you, the good ol’ days are back…” reads a sign outside the brewery. Community involvement and volunteer support was instrumental in making this project a reality.  (Photo courtesy of the Potosi Brewing Company)

Award-winning beer and brewing history may be what brings visitors from all over the world to this small Wisconsin town.  But it is the people of Potosi that have made this project work, from local residents initially deciding to buy to the property, to the community’s involvement in the planning and visioning stages, to the over 100 volunteers who support the Foundation in a variety of capacities each year.  An emphasis on local – local beer, local food, and the local people themselves – have all contributed to the success seen here.  While the sign outside the brewery proclaims that Potosi’s “good ol’ days” have returned, the town’s economic development strategies that are rooted in a creative approach to main street redevelopment have set Potosi on a path to enjoy many more good days long into the future.

This case study was researched and written by Brett Schwartz, NADO Research Fellow.

~~

This is part of the NADO Research Foundation’s Vibrant Rural Communities series of case studies, which describes how rural regions and small towns across the country are growing local and regional economies and creating stronger communities. This series shows how communities can leverage a wide range of tools and resources to build on their assets, protect their resources, and make strategic investments that offer long-term benefits.

This project is based in part upon work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under Agreement No. DTFH61-10-C-00047. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of FHWA or the NADO Research Foundation.

Although the Senate already passed a five-year farm bill reauthorization (S. 3240) on June 21 and the House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the farm bill (H.R. 6083) on July 12, major differences between the two chambers’ bills are delaying further progress.

While the House Agriculture Committee bill would save $35 billion over 10 years, the Republican caucus does not support the overall cost of $958 billion with almost 80 percent of that funding directed towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. Even though the committee bill reduces the SNAP program by $16.1 billion over ten years, House Conservatives say that the program should be cut by at least $33 billion, the level approved in a House budget reconciliation bill in May. House Democrats also oppose the bill, wanting to preserve the SNAP program.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already stated that his chamber will not consider a one-year extension of farm programs, and that the House should consider the Senate-passed five-year measure.

While disagreement over the SNAP program will undoubtedly continue to stall farm bill reauthorization, the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) is strategizing on how to remove food stamps from the farm bill when Congress returns in September. RSC leaders are also hoping to convert food stamp funding from mandatory spending to discretionary spending, making it easier for Republican appropriators to reduce food-stamp spending in future appropriations cycles.  The RSC is the largest caucus within the House Republican Conference (164 of 240 House Republicans are members) and is made up of lawmakers who favor small government, low taxes, and reduced federal spending.

Although no agreement was reached on the farm bill or a short-term extension before Congress adjourned for the August recess, the issue will certainly be re-visited in September.

Like the Senate bill, the House measure repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs.  The House bill would also reduce food and nutrition spending by more than $35 billion, mainly by cutting about $16.5 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly the food stamps program). The Senate bill (S. 3240), which was passed on June 21, cut about $23 billion in spending, with $4.5 billion in savings coming from food stamps. About 80 percent of farm bill spending goes to food stamps.

During yesterday’s 15-hour mark-up, the House Agriculture committee considered about 100 amendments to the legislation, including several that would impact regional development organizations and rural America. Rep. Mike McIntyre’s (D-NC) amendment to reauthorize the Northern Border Regional Commission and Southeast Crescent Regional Commission was ruled “out of order” by the Committee leadership and Rep. McIntyre was unable to offer the amendment. Other key amendments included:

• An amendment offered by Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) was rejected by voice vote that would have directed $50 million in mandatory spending to address the water and wastewater backlog at USDA.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) was rejected (26-18) that would have required the Secretary of USDA to give priority to economic development projects undertaken through a collaboration of stakeholders, including multiple layers of government.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) was rejected (25-19) that would have allowed USDA to award loans in combination with grants when lending for broadband telecommunications services in rural areas.  The grants would not exceed 10 percent of the cost of the project involved.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) was rejected by voice vote that would have raised the population threshold from 20,000 to 30,000 for rural areas to participate in the Community Facilities loans and grants programs.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) was rejected (24-20) that would have increased the Rural Utilities Service Broadband Program authorization level from $25 million to $35 million and would have directed appropriators to provide no less than $25 million for loans and no less than $10 million for grants.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) was withdrawn that would have clarified the definition of an “unincorporated area” to include state or municipally designated townships, villages, boroughs, counties or municipal subdivisions.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) was adopted by voice vote that would give greater flexibility to USDA’s Rural Business and Industry Loan Program by including the term “working capital” as an approved purpose.  The amendment would also allow rural small businesses to use their accounts receivable for securing adequate collateral during the underwriting process for the loan program.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) was withdrawn that would have removed the cap on USDA’s Business and Industry loans in certain circumstances and would have authorized local and regional food systems as eligible for Rural Business Opportunity Grants.
•  An amendment offered by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) was adopted by voice vote that would reauthorize state-and-local rural development councils through 2017.

Moving forward, the big question remains whether or not the House Republican Leadership will move the bill to the floor before the November elections. House leaders also have the option to bypass a House floor vote and send the legislation directly to conference with the Senate, which approved its version of the farm bill (S. 3240) on June 21.

Although House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Ranking Member Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) have urged House leadership to move the bipartisan package forward, several obstacles stand in the way of getting a farm bill passed before the election: a short legislative calendar to complete work on the bill, major fundamental differences between House and Senate versions of the bill, and pressure from Republicans for larger cuts in government spending.

Ultimately, the House and Senate must work out a final compromise before Sept. 30, when the current five-year farm bill (passed in 2008) expires, or else an extension would be necessary.

Farm Bill Resources:

• Click here to view a list of all the amendments offered at the Agriculture Committee mark-up as reported by CQ
• Click here to view USDA Secretary Vilsack’s statement on the House farm bill
• Click here to view the legislative text of the House Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (FARRM)
• Click here to view the committee summary of FARRM
• Click here to view the House Agriculture Committee press release
• A committee summary of FARRM can be found here
• Click here to view a letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas on the estimated spending effects of FARRM
• For more information on the Senate farm bill (S. 3240), including bill text and Senate Agriculture Committee summaries, click here
• On June 6, NADO and 185 other organizations, as part of the Campaign for a Renewed Rural Development, sent a letter to the Senate requesting increased investment in rural development. To view the letter click here

Like the Senate bill, the House draft legislation (FARRM) repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House draft would cut mandatory spending by approximately $35 billion from fiscal 2013 to 2022, which is $12 billion more than the CBO score for the committee-approved Senate bill (S. 3240). The Senate passed its bill on June 21.

The majority of savings from FARRM ($16.1 billion) would come from cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly food stamps). An estimated $23.6 billion in savings from changes to commodity programs would be offset by an increase of $9.5 billion in spending on crop insurance, providing a net savings of approximately $14 billion. Much of the remaining savings (about $6 billion) would come from consolidating 23 conservation programs into 13.

Under the Rural Development title (Title VI of FARRM), 14 programs are eliminated and funding levels are reduced by more than $1.5 billion over five years, a 50 percent reduction in authorizations. In addition, the draft House bill includes only $50 million in mandatory funding, approximately $100 million below current levels.

In comparison, the final Senate bill (S. 3240) provided $150 million in mandatory funding divided among four Rural Development programs:

• Value-Added Producer Grant Program  (Provides $50 million)
• Rural Micro-entrepreneur Assistance Program (Provides $15 million)
• Water/Wastewater Backlog (Provides $50 million)
• Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (Provides an additional $35 million, bringing total BFRDP funding to $85 million)

The House draft measure reauthorizes the Intermediary Relending Program, the Rural Micro-entrepreneur Assistance Program, the Broadband Loan Program, the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, Rural Cooperative Development Grants, several community facilities loans and grants, and several Water and Wastewater Programs including the Water, Waste Disposal and Wastewater Facility Grants, the Circuit Rider Program, Imminent Community Water Assistance Grants, and grants to finance individual wells.  The draft also provides $50 million in mandatory funding for Value-Added Producer grants.

In addition, the draft requires USDA to develop simplified application forms wherever practical for rural development programs to reduce administrative burdens and make the programs more accessible to small, rural communities. The draft also directs USDA to update a previous study on rural transportation issues to provide policy makers with current data on the state of transportation systems which move commodities and processed goods throughout rural America.

Moving forward, NADO continues to work with committee staff on both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and with over 100 other organizations as part of the Campaign for a Renewed Rural Development to ensure that strategic investments continue to be made in rural America.  Click here to view a coalition letter signed by NADO which applauds House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) for their leadership in moving the bill forward, but asks them to correct several issues in the Rural Development title of the bill.

Resources:

• Click here to view a draft of the House Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (FARRM)
• A committee summary of FARRM can be found here
• Click here to view a letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas on the estimated spending effects of FARRM
• For additional information on the House Agriculture Committee markup scheduled for July 11, click here
• For more information on the Senate farm bill (S. 3240), including bill text and Senate Agriculture Committee summaries, click here
• On June 6, NADO and 185 other organizations, as part of the Campaign for a Renewed Rural Development, sent a letter to the Senate requesting increased investment in rural development. To view the letter click here

Every five years, Congress passes a bundle of legislation, commonly called the “Farm Bill” that sets national agriculture, nutrition, conservation, and forestry policy. The last Farm Bill was passed in 2008, and is set to expire this year on Sept. 30.

Among many policy changes, the Senate-passed Farm Bill ends direct payments, streamlines and consolidates programs, and reduces the deficit by $23 billion by cutting crop subsidies (which provide the majority of savings), conservation funding and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program “SNAP” program (food stamps). Specifically, the bill would terminate $5 billion in annual direct payments to grain and cotton growers and replace it with a revenue-protection plan that would offer “shallow loss” coverage for farmers who experience price and crop losses. The bill would also cut the SNAP program by $4.5 billion over the next five years.

Among the amendments, amendment #2445 offered by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) passed by a vote of 55-44 which would strengthen rural communities by providing $150 million in mandatory funding divided among four rural development programs:

• Value-Added Producer Grant Program  (Provides $50 million)
• Rural Micro-entrepreneur Assistance Program (Provides $15 million)
• Water/Wastewater Backlog (Provides $50 million)
• Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (Provides an additional $35 million, bringing total BFRDP funding to $85 million)

The House Agriculture Committee is expected to mark up its version of the bill July 11.  The House bill is expected to be $10 billion below the Senate measure.

For more information on S. 3240, including bill text and Senate Agriculture Committee summaries, click here.  On June 6, NADO and 185 other organizations, as part of the Campaign for a Renewed Rural Development, sent a letter to the Senate asking them to invest in rural development and to support Sen. Brown’s amendment.  To view the letter click here.

View the NADO power point presentation.

McKinney outlined several noteworthy regional programs such as the COGs Local Energy Assurance Project, Waste Reduction Partners program, forest product businesses initiative, regional brownfields redevelopment, and workforce development.

To view the NADO presentation click here.

Cole uses his personal experiences from the state DOT and regional economic development worlds to tell a story and to share several important life lessons and takeaways.  As Cole quotes from a Maine DOT engineer, “all it takes is ‘one angry man with a laptop’ to significantly impede forward progress.”  We hope this new special report will help policy makers, practitioners and other stakeholders think differently about the challenges and opportunities ahead for the nation and our local communities.

View the report at http://www.nado.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cole_ConnectDOTs.pdf.

To view PDF files, get Adobe Reader.