Proposed ARL Criteria Amendments A Fresh Look at Pierce County - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A Fresh Look at Pierce County Agriculture

November 2016

ARL Information Meetings

Proposed ARL Criteria Amendments

2

Tonight – Learn More About…

 Agricultural Resource Lands (ARL)  What’s being proposed to amend Pierce County’s Comprehensive Plan  How to comment

3

Gr Graham aham Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ssion Gr Graham aham Fi Fire re & Rescu Rescue, Station Station 94 94 Tuesday, Tuesday, Dec December mber 13 13 6:00 6:00 p. p.m. Mi Mid ‐ County County Advisory Advisory Co Commi mmission

• n

Mi Mid ‐ County County Com Communi unity ty Center Center Tuesday, Tuesday, Dec December mber 13 13 6:30 6:30 p. p.m. Gi Gig Harbor Harbor Peni Peninsul nsula Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ission Ci City ty of

• f Gi

Gig Harbor, Harbor, Southeast Southeast Entrance Entrance Wednesday, dnesday, Dec December mber 14 14 6:30 6:30 p.m p.m. Key Key Peni Peninsul nsula Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ssion Key Key Peni Peninsul nsula Ci Civi vic Center Center VFW VFW Room Room Wednesday, dnesday, Dec December mber 21 21 6:30 6:30 p.m p.m.

Opportunity For Public Comment

Land Land Use Use Advi Advisor sory Co Commi mmission Public Public Meetings eetings Planning Planning Co Commi mmissi ssion Publ Public ic Hear Hearing

Pl Planni anning ng Com Commission ssion Pi Pier erce ce County County Annex Annex – Public lic Heari Hearing Room Room Wednesday, dnesday, January January 11 11 6:00 6:00 p. p.m.

4

Agenda

• 1. Proposed ARL Criteria ‐

Highlights

• 2. Project overview
• 3. Findings and

Recommendations

• 4. Opportunities to comment

5

A Fresh Look at Pierce County Agriculture Project Overview

6

Independent Expert Team

Barney Barney & Wor Worth, h, In Inc. c. Globalw Globalwise ise FLO FLO Anal Analyti ytics Lucas Lucas Patzek, Patzek, Ph PhD SCJ SCJ Allia lliance ce E2 E2 Land Land Use Use Planni Planning ng Servi Services es E.D. E.D. Hovee Hovee & Co. Co.

7

Core team members offered expertise in diverse disciplines.

Team Team Me Memb mber Rol Role

 Cl Clark ark Wo Worth Project Management  Libby Libby Barg Barg Public Involvement  Lucas Patzek, PhD Crop Science Soil Science  Eric Eisemann, JD Land Use/Growth Management Act  Bruce Prenguber Agricultural Economics  Jennifer Axelrod Advanced GIS  Lisa Palazzi, CPSS Soil Science Eric Hovee Economics Alex Brasch Advanced GIS Vic Parker Web/Graphic Design

 Experience with agricultural land designation.

8

The assignment

 Evaluat Evaluate the the exi existing ting crite criteria ia for ARL land use designation.  Recom Recommend nd appropriate appropriate criteria criteria for the designation of ARLs (and other approaches) to:

Protect and support the agricultural economy Comply with the Growth Management Act

9

GMA frames the rules for ag land designation.

Defi Defini niti tions

• ns

– Lands not already characterized by urban growth – Hold long ‐ term significance for commercial production

Requi Requirem rement nts for for counties counties

 County ‐ wide or area ‐wide approach (not parcel ‐by ‐parcel)  Periodic review/update for resource lands designation

10

The project scrutinized all of Pierce County’s current ARL criteria

• 1. Located in rural area of County (outside UGA)
• 2. Five acres or greater
• 3. Contain at least 50% “Prime Farmland” soils
• 4. Grass/legume production yield of 3.5 tons per

acre or greater

• 5. 50% of abutting parcels larger than 1 acre

11

• 6. Landowner may request the designation

12

13

Technical Reports

1 Pierce Pierce Count County Agr Agricul cultur ure Today Today WG WGMH MHB Deci Decisions

• ns on
• n ARL

ARL 2 3 ARL ARL Cri Criteri eria in in Other Other Counties Counties 4 Success Success Factors Factors for for Local Local Ag Ag Producers Producers 5 Trends Trends 6 County County Zoning Zoning Regul Regulati tions

• ns

7 Evaluation Evaluation of

• f Curren

Current Pierce Pierce ARL ARL Criteria iteria 8 Im Impacts cts of

• f ARL

ARL on

• n Taxing

Taxing Di Distr strict cts 9 Farm Farmland land Protections Protections Beyond Beyond ARL ARL

 Available on freshlookatpierceag.org

14

Pierce County agriculture – 2016

 Shrinking average farm size  Traditional, large ‐acre farms going out  New farmers attracted to Pierce County: smaller, emphasize sustainable practices  Local food market channels showing strength

Sources: Pierce County Agriculture Strategic Plan (2006) Technical Memorandum #1 (2016)

2006

15

Pierce County Ag – Current Picture

 Around 50,000 acres actively farmed  Very diverse agricultural activity across the county  The best farmland – in Puyallup/Orting Valleys – continues to face pressure for conversion  Multiple factors contribute to idled farmland: high startup costs vs. small net incomes, intergenerational transition, high land prices

16

WGMHB and Court Decisions

 Legislative mandate to conserve ag land upheld; counties must conform to GMA  County ‐ wide/area ‐wide perspective (not parcel ‐by ‐parcel)  Focus on ag land that is used or capable of being used  ARL threshold:

— Not characterized by urban development — Capable of agricultural production — Long ‐ term commercial significance

 GMA and decisions offer minimum guidelines, allow for regional variation

17

ARL Criteria Vary in Other Counties

 Rules under WAC 365‐190‐050 (3)(c) leave room for discretion  Minimum parcel size varies from 5 to 120 acres  All counties consider prime soils, but suitability criteria vary widely (soil classification, percentage)  Half of counties consider current use  Some counties set ARL districts: Thurston, Snohomish, Walla Walla

18

Evaluation of Current Pierce ARL Criteria

Current rrent Pierce Pierce County unty ARL ARL Design Designation ation Criteria iteria Com Complies lies wit with GM GMA/ A/ WG WGMH MHB Used Used in in Ot Other her Count Counties ies Data Data Available Available Possible Possible to to Va Vary by by District District Stakeholder Stakeholder Feedback Feedback Located in a rural area (

• utside UGA

)

  

Workable – but UGA boundaries change 5 acres or greater

   

Is 5 acres too small? Should contiguous parcels be considered? Contains at least 50% prime farmland soils

   

No consensus on definition for prime farmland soils Greenhouses/other production doesn’t require prime soils 50% is arbitrary; too high for larger sites Grass/legume yield of 3.5 tons or more per acre

 

Arbitrary, unique, outdated, and confusing – not based on real productivity or Pierce County’s typical crops. T/acre is not a high standard 3.5 % of abutting parcels 50 larger than 1 acre

   

1‐acre limit seems random, too small Landowner may request designation

 

NA



“Anybody should be able to designate their land ARL”

19

Evaluation of Current Pierce ARL Criteria

 Pierce County’s six ARL criteria fully comply with GMA requirements.  Most criteria are similar to other counties.  The grass/legume yield criterion is unique to Pierce County and widely criticized as not based on real productivity or Pierce County’s crops.  However – alternative methods to measure soil productivity are not useful substitutes.

20

 Pierce County’s small minimum parcel size (5 acres) and abutting parcels (1 acre) contribute to a patchwork of small, scattered ARL zones.  Establishing sub ‐county ag districts offers potential to respond to differences in soils, crops, parcel size, etc.

Evaluation of Current Pierce ARL Criteria – cont.

21

ARL Impacts on Taxing Districts?

Concern: Does ARL designation reduce property taxes to school, fire, other districts? Finding: Current use (CU) program – not ARL – reduces taxable value on ag land under RCW 84.34 Note: Agricultural land has lower property values and produces less tax revenue than land with

• structures. This is universally true whether or not the

land is zoned ARL.

Source: Technical Memorandum #8, E.D. Hovee & Company

22

Stakeholder Outreach

• Stakeholder interviews
• Mailings to landowners

(4,000)

• Stakeholder survey (208)
• Educational, interactive

public meetings (90)

Graham – August 9 Orting – August 9 Gig Harbor – August 10

• Media coverage: newspaper,

radio, television

23

• Near consensus support for protecting

agricultural land

• Little shared understanding of ARL and how

it works

• No agreement on designation criteria
• Other farmland protections are broadly

supported: “more important than ARL”

• Some skepticism about ARL impacts on

taxing districts – stakeholders want to see the analysis

Stakeholder Interviews – What We Heard

24

Public Meetings/Survey‐What We Heard

 Feedback on Preliminary Recommendations

– 208 surveys – 51% farmers and rural landowners

 69% support agriculture production districts  74% want to drop grass/legume productivity standard  59% want to change the prime soils criterion  Other methods to protect farmland supported by 60% to 83% of respondents

25

Public Meetings/Survey ‐What We Heard Receiving Less Support:

 Increase minimum parcel size: 23 % support/49% oppose  Increase requirements for abutting parcels: 28 % support/48% oppose  Many participants say they are “not sure” – 18 % to 28% – for each question .

26

Overview – What We Learned

• 1. Pierce County’s ARL criteria comply with GMA.
• 2. Current ARL zoning doesn’t protect the most productive

farmland.

• 3. Countywide criteria don’t respond to local differences.
• 4. Pierce ARL criteria have other technical problems:

– Exclude most large farm sites – Prime soils definition includes soils that won’t support cultivation

• 5. ARL designation has NO direct impact on taxing districts.
• 6. ARL zoning alone is not enough to protect Pierce

County’s best farmland

27

Recommendations ‐ Modify ARL Criteria

Current Current Cri Criteria eria Modifications difications 1 . Located outside urban growth area No change 2 . Five acres or greater Increase standard and vary by district 3 . Contains 50% or more “prime farmland” soils Modify and vary by district 4 . Grass/legume production yield

• f 3.5 tons per acre or greater

Remove this criterion 5 . 50 % of abutting parcels larger than 1 acre Modify and vary by district 6 . Landowners may request the designation Simplify and publicize voluntary ARL designation

Summary of proposed Agricultural Resource Lands Criteria by Production District

Production Production Di Dist stri rict Bonne Bonney Lake/ Lake/ Buckl Buckley Pl Plateau ateau Central Central/ South South Pi Pierce erce County County Peninsula Peninsula Puya yallu llup/ p/ Or Orting Valle lley Exi Existi ting ng ARL ARL Criteria iteria Proposed Proposed ARL ARL Criteria iteria . Located Located Ou Outside Ur Urban 1 Growth Growth Areas Areas Y es 2 . Five Five Acres Acres or

• r Greater

Greater acres or greater 10 40 acres or greater acres or greater 10 acres or greater 10 3.

• 3. Contains

Contains 50% 50% mo more “prim “prime farm farmland” land” soils soils % or 20 acres 50 Modified list of prime soils % or 20 acres 50 Modified list of prime soils % or 20 acres 50 Modified list of prime soils % or 10 acres 25 Modified list of prime soils 4.

• 4. Grass

Grass/Legum Legume productio production yield yield of

• f 3.5

3.5 tons tons per per acre acre or

• r greater

greater Elimi nated 5 . 50% 50% of

• f abuttin

utting parcels parcels la large rger tha than 1 acre acre 50 % of abutting parcels larger than 5 acres 50 % of abutting parcels larger than acres 20 50 % of abutting parcels larger than 5 acres 50 % of abutting parcels larger than 1 acre 6.

• 6. Lando

Landowners wners ma may request request des designatio gnation Yes ‐ New Criteria and Procedures

29

Recommended ARL Criteria

30

Results vs. Current ARL Criteria

 Fewer, larger sites:

– 751 vs. 1,502 parcels – Average size 39.6 vs. 15.3 acres

 Total ARL acreage would increase by one‐third

– 31,000 vs. 23,000 acres – Increase in every district: +14% (Puyallup) to +68% (Bonney/Buckley) – Largest increase in Central/South: +3,268 acres

31

 ARL acreage still well below currently farmed (31,000

• vs. 50,000 acres)

 Every district has ARL parcels that would no longer qualify under the new criteria

32

Gr Graham aham Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ssion Gr Graham aham Fi Fire re & Rescu Rescue, Station Station 94 94 Tuesday, Tuesday, Dec December mber 13 13 6:00 6:00 p. p.m. Mi Mid ‐ County County Advisory Advisory Co Commi mmission

• n

Mi Mid ‐ County County Com Communi unity ty Center Center Tuesday, Tuesday, Dec December mber 13 13 6:30 6:30 p. p.m. Gi Gig Harbor Harbor Peni Peninsul nsula Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ission Ci City ty of

• f Gi

Gig Harbor, Harbor, Southeast Southeast Entrance Entrance Wednesday, dnesday, Dec December mber 14 14 6:30 6:30 p.m p.m. Key Key Peni Peninsul nsula Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ssion Key Key Peni Peninsul nsula Ci Civi vic Center Center VFW VFW Room Room Wednesday, dnesday, Dec December mber 21 21 6:30 6:30 p.m p.m.

Opportunity For Public Comment

Land Land Use Use Advi Advisor sory Co Commi mmission Public Public Meetings eetings Planning Planning Co Commi mmissi ssion Publ Public ic Hear Hearing

Pl Planni anning ng Com Commission ssion Pi Pier erce ce County County Annex Annex – Public lic Heari Hearing Room Room Wednesday, dnesday, January January 11 11 6:00 6:00 p. p.m.

33

Comment Online

www.piercecountywa.org/2016CompPlanAmendments