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

Proposed ARL Criteria Amendments A Fresh Look at Pierce County Agriculture ARL Information Meetings November 2016

Tonight – Learn More About…  Agricultural Resource Lands (ARL)  What’s being proposed to amend Pierce County’s Comprehensive Plan  How to comment 2

Opportunity For Public Comment Land Land Use Use Advi Advisor sory Co Commi mmission Public Public Meetings eetings Gr Graham aham Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ssion Tuesday, Dec Tuesday, December mber 13 13 6:00 6:00 p. p.m. Gr Graham aham Fi Fire re & Rescu Rescue, Station Station 94 94 Mi Mid ‐ County County Advisory Advisory Co Commi mmission on Tuesday, Tuesday, Dec December mber 13 13 6:30 6:30 p. p.m. Mi Mid ‐ County County Com Communi unity ty Center Center Gig Harbor Gi Harbor Peni Peninsul nsula Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ission Wednesday, dnesday, Dec December mber 14 14 6:30 6:30 p.m p.m. City Ci ty of of Gi Gig Harbor, Harbor, Southeast Southeast Entrance Entrance Key Key Peni Peninsul nsula Advi Advisory sory Com Commission ssion Wednesday, dnesday, Dec December mber 21 21 6:30 6:30 p.m p.m. Key Peni Key Peninsul nsula Ci Civi vic Center Center VFW VFW Room Room Planning Co Planning Commi mmissi ssion Publ Public ic Hear Hearing Pl Planni anning ng Com Commission ssion Wednesday, dnesday, January January 11 11 6:00 p. 6:00 p.m. Pi Pier erce ce County County Annex Annex – Public lic Heari Hearing Room Room 3

Agenda 1. Proposed ARL Criteria ‐ Highlights 2. Project overview 3. Findings and Recommendations 4. Opportunities to comment 4

A Fresh Look at Pierce County Agriculture Project Overview 5

Independent Expert Team Barney Barney & Wor Worth, h, In Inc. c. Globalw Globalwise ise FLO Anal FLO Analyti ytics Lucas Patzek, Lucas Patzek, Ph PhD SCJ SCJ Allia lliance ce E2 E2 Land Land Use Use Planni Planning ng Servi Services es 6 E.D. E.D. Hovee Hovee & Co. Co.

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 7 Vic Parker Web/Graphic Design  Experience with agricultural land designation.

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 8

GMA frames the rules for ag land designation. Defi Defini niti tions ons – 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 9

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 10

6. Landowner may request the designation 11

12

Technical Reports 1 Pierce Pierce Count County Agr Agricul cultur ure Today Today 2 WG WGMH MHB Deci Decisions ons on on ARL ARL 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 ons 7 Evaluation Evaluation of of Curren Current Pierce Pierce ARL ARL Criteria iteria 8 Im Impacts cts of of ARL ARL on on Taxing Taxing Di Distr strict cts 9 Farm Farmland land Protections Protections Beyond Beyond ARL ARL 13  Available on freshlookatpierceag.org

Pierce County agriculture – 2016 2006  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 14 Sources: Pierce County Agriculture Strategic Plan (2006) Technical Memorandum #1 (2016)

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 15

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 16

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 17

Evaluation of Current Pierce ARL Criteria Complies Com lies Possible Possible Used Used in in Current rrent Pierce Pierce County unty wit with Data Data to Va to Vary Ot Other her Stakeholder Stakeholder Feedback Feedback ARL Design ARL Designation ation Criteria iteria GMA/ GM A/ Available Available by by Count Counties ies WGMH WG MHB District District Located in a rural area Workable – but UGA boundaries change    ( outside UGA ) Is 5 acres too small?     5 acres or greater Should contiguous parcels be considered? No consensus on definition for prime farmland soils Contains at least 50%     Greenhouses/other production doesn’t require prime soils prime farmland soils 50% is arbitrary; too high for larger sites Arbitrary, unique, outdated, and confusing – not based on Grass/legume yield of 3.5   real productivity or Pierce County’s typical crops. tons or more per acre 3.5 T/acre is not a high standard 1 ‐ acre limit seems random, too small 50 % of abutting parcels     larger than 1 acre Landowner may request “Anybody should be able to designate their land ARL”    NA designation 18

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. 19

Evaluation of Current Pierce ARL Criteria – cont.  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. 20

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 21

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 22

Stakeholder Interviews – What We Heard • 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 23

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 24

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 . 25