The Baca Building (right) and Estella’s Café (middle) are local landmarks on Bridge Street in Las Vegas, New Mexico. Families and individuals have been critical in supporting the city’s historic preservation efforts.

It has often been said that “If you’ve seen one rural town, you’ve seen one rural town.”  This observation is certainly true as each community has its own geography, history, natural resources, climate, and demographics.  However, the unique nature of each town should not serve as a barrier for sharing success stories and best practices because communities – particularly small towns – can learn much from each other about building partnerships, seeking innovative funding opportunities, and encouraging community participation in economic development projects.  While not every small town will have the same local assets and advantages described in these case studies, every community does have the opportunity to look at itself, bring residents and elected officials together, and set a vision for how to take advantage of local assets in whatever form they take.  It is the goal of these case studies  to provide a snapshot of a few communities that have succeeded in beginning to make those visions a reality.

Featured Case Studies:

• Las Vegas, New Mexico
• Guthrie, Kentucky
• Potosi, Wisconsin
• Greenville, Kentucky
• Lavonia, Georgia
• Sheridan County, Wyoming
• Lewistown, Pennsylvania
• Clinton, Iowa
• Rome, Georgia

A citizen-supported restaurant and hotel tax in Greenville, Kentucky established a Tourism Commission which has financed downtown façade improvements as well as free festivals and concerts, including the popular summer music series, “Saturdays on the Square.” (Photo Courtesy of Greenville photographer Amy Hourigan)

 ________________

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.

Fifty miles south of Greenville, Kentucky (previously featured here), the Pennyrile Area Development District (PADD) has been a partner in another transformative small town redevelopment project in Guthrie.  This past August, the town broke ground on a planned Transportation Museum and Welcome Center, a $1.4 million project almost a decade in the making.

Guthrie, home to 1,400 residents, is located along the Kentucky-Tennessee border and is steeped in transportation and American history.  Known as the “Crossroads of the South,” the town is named after James Guthrie, former US senator from Kentucky and one-time president of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad – the company that built the first major switch track in the city.  Throughout the years, other rail lines would be routed through Guthrie both north-south and east-west, solidifying the town as a major destination during the golden era of the railroad.  The town also has its place in one of the darker episodes of American history as Native Americans on the Trail of Tears entered Kentucky by way of Guthrie on the journey westward.

Abandoned for decades, the two-building structure in downtown Guthrie known as the “Jenkins Building” will be home to a new transportation museum and Trail of Tears route welcome center when it opens in summer 2013. (Photo courtesy of De Leon and Primmer Architectural Workshop)

Though the railroad industry and Guthrie itself has changed much since its boom years, this town has not forgotten its roots and continues to embrace the culture of the industry that led to its development almost two centuries ago.  The transportation museum and welcome center for those touring the National Trail of Tears route will be located in a 120-year old two-building structure located downtown, known locally as the “Jenkins Building.”  Vacant since the early 1980s and currently in major disrepair, this 8,000 square foot space was the former site of a pharmacy and later the Jenkins Department Store which served the residents of Guthrie and surrounding areas for decades.  The red brick building was donated to the city after Mayor Scott Marshall reached out to the owner and discussed the plans for a museum.

Small Town, Big Expectations  

The museum and welcome center will be located in downtown Guthrie near the very train tracks (visible to the right and top of the photo) that helped shape the history and culture of this small Kentucky town. Click to enlarge map. (Image created using Google Earth)

Guthrie has set high expectations for this locally-driven project.  “Our goal is to have the museum be the same quality as one you would find in much larger cities, such as Louisville or Lexington,” says Tracy Robinson, Executive Manager of the city’s Guthrie Partners for Main Street.  Much of that high-end quality will come from enlisting the services of the De Leon & Primmer Architectural Workshop, a Louisville-based firm which specializes in designing modern projects that embrace local themes and history.  “A key part of the design concept was heavily influenced by common and familiar elements specific to the railroad and transportation industry that was so important to the city’s early growth,” explains principal Roberto de Leon.  Once completed, visitors will experience a renovated building which highlights the town’s past through the use of steel plate framing, concrete walls, and even color gel fluorescents which will elicit transportation-themed colors of red, yellow, green, blue, and brown.  The inside will mostly be gutted to make room for the modern exhibits, but the exterior façades and beautiful brick walls will be preserved, including a hand-painted vintage Coca-Cola mural advertising the soft drink for five cents a bottle.

Community involvement and buy-in was crucial while planning the museum.  “Throughout the design process, we worked closely and collaboratively with the Guthrie community and city leaders, organizing a series of workshops to maximize the value of the community’s investments in the project.  Most importantly, we were interested in the community’s aspirations,” says de Leon.

A rendering of the proposed exterior design for Guthrie’s transportation museum and welcome center. (Photo courtesy of De Leon and Primmer Architectural Workshop)

What was once an eyesore in downtown Guthrie will now attract visitors to learn about the city’s past, the transportation industry, and the larger surrounding region.  It is anticipated that visitors to the museum will benefit local businesses as people will shop and eat while downtown, an area that currently has 17 commercial buildings.  More importantly, the transportation museum is expected to serve as a larger catalyst for economic development in addition to the immediate local jobs created during the renovation stage.  “By renovating the Jenkins Building, this project can inspire other projects across the street, then down the street, and overall instill a sense of pride in the community,” says Robinson of Guthrie Partners for Main Street.  Finally, in addition to the economic development the museum is expected to bring to Guthrie is the priceless role that the museum will serve in celebrating the town’s past and reminding the residents, particularly children, of their own vibrant heritage.

‘You Must Be Persistent’

While the interior of the building will mostly be gutted, the building’s historic façade and brick exterior will be preserved, including this vintage Coca-Cola advertisement. (Photo courtesy of De Leon and Primmer Architectural Workshop)

Funding for the project was pooled from a $500,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and $900,000 from two Kentucky Transportation Enhancement (TE) grants.  “During the grant process, you must be persistent,” explains Robinson.  “We had to compete with much larger communities vying for limited amounts of money which means you have to be creative.  A project like this means a lot to a community like ours and we were stubborn enough not to give up.”  That persistence was clearly demonstrated by Mayor Marshall who made numerous trips to the state capital in Frankfort to seek funding and support for the project.

PADD supported the city in preparing the application and are also administering the CDBG funds.  “The interstate highways today take you around the towns that used to be the jewels of the region,” says Jason Vincent, PADD’s Assistant Director.  “With this new museum, Guthrie will have an opportunity to showcase its rich transportation history by attracting visitors to town.”

Through this new museum and welcome center, Guthrie has been able to turn a community liability into a true asset.  When it opens in the summer of 2013, it will have been after years of hard work, struggle, and dedication – much in the same spirit of Guthrie’s original residents who built this railroad town many years ago.

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.

The House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the farm bill (H.R. 6083) on July 12. The bill has not moved to the House floor for a vote because of funding debates over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps. The House farm bill would cut SNAP $12 billion more than the Senate version of the bill. The 2008 farm bill expired on September 30 and if no deal on a five-year farm bill is reached, Congress may have to pass a temporary extension of the 2008 farm bill during the lame-duck session.

Although both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) publically stated this week that their chambers will act on the stalled legislation when Congress returns in November, neither leader provided details on how they intend to negotiate a final farm bill during a lame-duck session. Leader Reid said he would push the House for a five-year farm bill, while Speaker Boehner said the House would consider a multi-year measure or even an extension of the current law.

When they revisit the matter in November, negotiations will not be easy. The Senate passed a five-year farm bill (S. 3240) in June that would save $23 billion over 10 years while the House Agriculture Committee approved a five-year bill (H.R. 6083) in July that would save $35 billion over 10 years. House Republican leaders have not allowed floor consideration of the measure over disagreements among GOP members over the level of proposed reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House bill proposes $16 billion in cuts to the program over 10 years, while the Senate bill proposes $4.5 billion in cuts.  While House conservatives want much deeper reductions, most House Democrats do not support any cuts to the program and would be unlikely to provide GOP leaders the votes they need to offset lost Republican votes.

The letter urges House leadership to bring the farm bill to a floor vote in early September (the House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the farm bill, H.R. 6083, on July 12), or go directly to a conference with the Senate (the Senate passed its version of the farm bill, S. 3240, on June 21).

The letter also urges Agriculture Committee leaders to support mandatory funding levels for Rural Development in the new farm bill and outlines several rural development priorities that NADO and other coalition groups hope to see included in a final bill:

• The Senate bill organizes the Rural Development title into a more simplified format that is easier for rural stakeholders to understand and will ensure better program delivery by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The coalition urges conferees to support this approach.
• Sec. 3702 of the Senate bill makes rural development programs more focused on funding the strategic economic and community priorities of rural stakeholders. This is a critical policy change that will assist all rural communities.
• The House bill requires USDA to improve program metrics that will lead to better program evaluations and increased effectiveness of funding decisions. The coalition supports this policy change.
• Both the House and Senate bills require the application process to be streamlined for rural communities, people, and businesses, and this policy change should be maintained in a final bill.
• The Senate bill’s authorization of Technical Assistance funding for the Community Facilities Program is critical to helping communities build capacity to apply for sophisticated facilities projects.
• The coalition supports the set aside for local and regional food systems under the Business and Industry Loan Program that is found in both versions of the bill, but opposes the seven percent cap found in the House bill.
• The Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program and Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program are effective at leveraging local resources to create rural jobs. At a minimum, the functions of each program should be maintained in a final bill and the coalition supports the Senate authorization level of $65 million annually.

• Alaska: Bristol Bay Jobs Accelerator Project, $405,023
• Connecticut: New England Food Hub Cluster Initiative, $568,150
• Illinois: Henry-Rural Rock Island-Mercer County Economic Development Consortium, $193,500
• Kansas: Advanced Manufacturing Institute at Kansas State University, $715,000
• Louisiana-Arkansas: I-20 Corridor Regional Accelerator, $964,134
• Mississippi: Mississippi State University, $1,065,000
• New Hampshire: Northern Tier Farm and Forest Jobs Accelerator, $708,750
• North Carolina: WNC AgriVentures — Cultivating Jobs and Innovation Project , $815,000
• North Carolina: Northern Carolina Eastern Region Aerospace and Automotive Cluster Project, $715,000
• South Carolina: Southern Carolina Alliance Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge, $650,000
• Virginia: Appalachian Spring – Using Asset-Based and Creative Economy Methods to Catalyze Rural Job Acceleration, $815,000
• West Virginia: Southern West Virginia Rural Jobs Accelerator Partnership, $717,985
• West Virginia: Value Chain Cluster Initiative, $815,000

The competition was designed by the Taskforce for the Advancement of Regional Innovation Clusters and the White House Rural Council and is also supported by nine other Federal agencies including Commerce’s U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership; Denali Commission; U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration; U.S. Department of Energy; Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the Small Business Administration.

For more information, please see Obama Administration Announces $9 Million Investment in Rural Communities to Foster Job Creation and Innovation.

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

Read the full NADO written statement.

This was the first of eight hearings by the committee as it prepares to draft its version of the 2012 Farm Bill, which covers commodity, nutrition, conservation, energy, forestry, research, and rural development programs across USDA.

At the hearing, Mazer discussed the importance of USDA Rural Development programs and how they are critical to our nation’s rural and most distressed areas as they work to further develop the fundamental building blocks necessary to be economically viable and competitive.  She also explained how the programs can be improved to increase their effectiveness.

“With rural regions now facing intense global competition, we need to ensure USDA Rural Development has the policies, program tools, and flexibility to assist rural communities with cutting-edge, asset-based regional development strategies and investments.  This will take a new level of sophistication and capacity within our rural regions and at USDA Rural Development,” said Mazer.

“USDA Rural Development applications, policies, and reporting requirements should be streamlined and broadened to reflect the scale of rural investments, emerging needs and opportunities of rural regions, and capacity of local organizations,” Mazer said.  “While retaining necessary financial and performance accountability standards, Congress should ensure USDA Rural Development has a modern set of policies, programs, and incentives to help rural communities pursue regionally-based, locally-driven community and economic development strategies.”

• Read the full NADO written statement.
• Witness statements for House Ag hearing on Rural Development
• House process for 2012 Farm Bill

View the NADO power point presentation.