Views
3 years ago

Genesee County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

Genesee County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

Agriculture

Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan In 1998 California signed into law what is being called “Super Williamson Act”. It allows for the conversion of existing Williamson Act agreements into 20-year contracts, thereby forming ‘farmland security zones.’ In exchange for the extended term, landowners receive a package of additional benefits, including a 35% reduction in property taxes beyond the reduction calculated under traditional contracts. Other benefits include protection from annexation by cities and special districts, a reduced special tax rate for urban-related services, and a ban on school districts condemning and buying land in farmland security zones. There are no provisions for canceling contracts before the term expires. As a result of these longer contracts, additional funds are provided by the state to the counties to make up a portion of the lost tax revenues. Since its adoption eleven counties have applied to participate. In addition, the state has recently dramatically ramped up funding of its purchase of development rights program. Strategic Mapping in Delaware An unusual convergence of circumstances in Delaware as it began its farmland protection efforts turned out to be a blessing. Faced with an approved but unfunded state program and a legal requirement to map strategic farmland in the state before buying any development rights, the Delaware Department of Agriculture embarked on a strategic mapping exercise that still leads the nation and is an integral part of a booming (and now well-funded) PDR program. They modified the LESA (Land Evaluation and Site Assessment) system to suit an area-wide analysis as opposed to a site-specific analysis. It incorporates factors such as natural soils groups, availability of sewer, land use/land cover, percent of area in agriculture, agricultural investment and the presence of natural areas. The result is a map with five different colors indicating lowest to highest priority for farmland preservation in the agricultural portions of the state. The ‘color’ of the map area where a particular farm is located then corresponds to half of the points that farm scores on the PDR ranking system should it apply to sell an easement. The maps were the results of years of testing and public input. Using this method, state resources are directed to the most productive agricultural resources and operations that have the best chance of remaining viable. Delaware also has a situation in which agricultural zoning in its three counties is very weak and function largely as rural residential development zones. Individual counties show little willingness to do anything about the agricultural zones, nor do they contribute matching dollars to the state PDR program. However, since creating an ‘agricultural districts’ is the only way to realize tax benefits, right-to-farm protections, or to be eligible to sell an easement, district participation is extremely high and may, in fact, be functioning as ‘de facto’ agricultural production zoning. Matching state funds is accomplished with landowner discounts to their full easement values. (See Appendix IV for program description and strategic mapping criteria.) Responding Quickly to Save Critical Farms in Carroll County, Maryland Located within easy commuting distance of both Baltimore and Washington, DC, Carroll County, Maryland set a goal for itself in the late 1970’s of permanently protecting 100,000 acres of farmland. They enacted 1:20 cluster zoning (a change from 1:1 zoning) to stabilize the land base and began vigorous participation in the state purchase of development rights program. To date they have agricultural easements on over 33,000 acres. However, they discovered that the Columbia, MD 21

Genesee County, New York state program could not respond quickly enough when prime land was at the critical point of changing ownership. The county’s response was the development of a ‘Critical Farms Program’. It functions as an enhancement to the state PDR program and guarantees a minimum easement value for farms that are being transferred. Applicants must be the contract purchasers or recent purchasers of a farm that qualifies for the state PDR program and that ranks high on the county’s preference formula. Based on an appraisal of the value of the easement, the county offers the new owner a payment of 75% of easement value for an option for the county to acquire the easement at the end of the five-year period. When the new owners receive the money for the option contract, they are obligated to put the farm in a state agricultural district and to offer to sell the easement to the state program for five years. If the state acquires the easement, the county is repaid the exact amount that was provided up-front (no-interest payment is required). The money is then recycled into the Critical Farms Program. At the end of five years, if the easement has not been purchased by the state, the farm owner has two options: repaying the County (with interest) for termination of the option agreement; or, accepting the easement as permanent with no additional payment from the county. Since it began in 1992, the Critical Farms Program has entered into 30 option contracts on 3,946 acres. So far almost all of easements have been purchased by the state and the remainder are in the pipeline. (See Appendix V for a copy of the application and the option contract.) Farmland Mitigation in the West Recently, two innovative approaches have been enacted to mitigate farmland loss. In 1995, the city of Davis, California, established an agricultural land mitigation requirement as part of a “Right to Farm and Farmland Preservation” ordinance. Adopting a “no net loss of farmland” approach, the Davis ordinance requires developers to permanently protect one acre of farmland for every acre of agricultural land they convert to other uses. Generally, developers place an agricultural conservation easement on land in another part of the city, although paying a fee may also satisfy mitigation. Protected farmland must meet certain requirements; for instance, it must contain soil comparable to the developed land and be located in one of the city’s agricultural zones. As the program has proceeded, payment in lieu of acres has been encouraged into order to allow the city to leverage state PDR funds to permanently protect farmland with easements. Several of the protection transactions were fee simple acquisitions of farms, which are then leased back to farmers, and the proceeds pumped back into the mitigation fund. (See Appendix VI for the Davis ordinance.) King County, Washington (on the edge of metropolitan Seattle) also uses a “no net loss” approach to farmland protection. In their case, it is applied to either of their two agricultural production zones. The zone containing their dairy farms is the most restrictive residentially (1:60) but the most conducive to commercial agriculture. The second zone, which contains mostly berry operations allows residential densities of one dwelling unit per thirty-five acres (1:35). Uses in these two zones are strictly limited to agricultural and the only building allowed must be clearly accessory to a production operation. Conversion to a non-agricultural use can 22 Agriculture and Community Development Services, Inc.

  • Page 2: Farmland Protection Plan Agricultur
  • Page 7 and 8: Genesee County: Agricultural and Fa
  • Page 9 and 10: Genesee County: Agricultural and Fa
  • Page 11 and 12: Genesee County: Agricultural and Fa
  • Page 13 and 14: Genesee County: Agricultural and Fa
  • Page 16 and 17: Genesee County Farmland Protection
  • Page 18 and 19: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 20 and 21: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 22 and 23: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 24 and 25: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 26 and 27: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 28 and 29: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 30 and 31: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 32 and 33: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 34 and 35: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 36 and 37: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 40 and 41: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 42 and 43: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 44 and 45: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 46 and 47: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 48 and 49: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 50 and 51: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 52 and 53: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 54 and 55: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 56 and 57: Agriculture and Farmland Protection
  • Page 58 and 59: Genesee County, New York Agricultur
  • Page 60: Location Factors (maximum points =
  • Page 115 and 116:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 117 and 118:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 119 and 120:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 121 and 122:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 123 and 124:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 125 and 126:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 127 and 128:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 129 and 130:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 131 and 132:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 133 and 134:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 135 and 136:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 137 and 138:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 139 and 140:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 141 and 142:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 143 and 144:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 145 and 146:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 147 and 148:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 149 and 150:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 151 and 152:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 153 and 154:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 155 and 156:

    Table of Contents Introduction 2 Me

  • Page 157 and 158:

    Methods The methods used to prepare

  • Page 159 and 160:

    Summary (continued) As Genesee Coun

  • Page 161 and 162:

    Genesee County Gross Farm Sales Reb

  • Page 163 and 164:

    Dairy and Cattle Sales Fuel Growth

  • Page 165 and 166:

    Genesee County Farm Expenses Grow M

  • Page 167 and 168:

    Farm Income Strength Keeps Farmers

  • Page 169 and 170:

    Real Farm Real Estate Values Slide

  • Page 171 and 172:

    Farm Cropland Falls Modestly in Gen

  • Page 173 and 174:

    Dairy Farm Numbers Plummet. Number

  • Page 175 and 176:

    Dairy Farm Size Expands in Genesee

  • Page 177 and 178:

    Traditional Crops - Harvested Acrea

  • Page 179 and 180:

    Specialty Crops - A Few Crops Domin

  • Page 181 and 182:

    Specialty Crops - Greenhouse Produc

  • Page 183 and 184:

    Number of Firms 30 25 20 15 10 Grow

  • Page 185 and 186:

    Genesee County Farming Sectors’ O

  • Page 187 and 188:

    Farming Sector Employment for Genes

  • Page 189 and 190:

    Farm Output Multipliers for Genesee

  • Page 191 and 192:

    Expenditures by the Vegetable Farm

  • Page 193 and 194:

    Appendix: IMPLAN Analysis and Resul

  • Page 195 and 196:

    Genesee County: Agricultural Develo

  • Page 197 and 198:

    APPENDIX B: Project Contact List Ma

  • Page 199 and 200:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 201 and 202:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 203 and 204:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 205 and 206:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 207 and 208:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 209 and 210:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 211 and 212:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 213 and 214:

    APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMEN

  • Page 215 and 216:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES Dair

  • Page 217 and 218:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES For

  • Page 219 and 220:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES Back

  • Page 221 and 222:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES seas

  • Page 223 and 224:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES Grai

  • Page 225 and 226:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES Prod

  • Page 227 and 228:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES The

  • Page 229 and 230:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES PROD

  • Page 231 and 232:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES The

  • Page 233 and 234:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES Cali

  • Page 235 and 236:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES Equi

  • Page 237 and 238:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES •

  • Page 239:

    APPENDIX D: INDUSTRY PRACTICES •

  • Page 251 and 252:

    Genesee County: Town of Byron Cost

  • Page 253 and 254:

    Genesee County: Town of Byron Cost

  • Page 255 and 256:

    Genesee County: Town of Byron Cost

  • Page 257 and 258:

    Genesee County: Town of Byron Cost

  • Page 259 and 260:

    Genesee County: Town of Byron Cost

  • Page 261 and 262:

    Fire District 1 46,500.00 41,850.00

  • Page 263 and 264:

    EMPLOYEES State Retirement 500.00 7

  • Page 265 and 266:

    Town of Byron Revenues 2000 Revenue

  • Page 267 and 268:

    APPENDIX C: SWOT ANALYSIS Stable La

  • Page 269 and 270:

    APPENDIX C: SWOT ANALYSIS Developme

  • Page 271 and 272:

    APPENDIX C: SWOT ANALYSIS Labor: Th

  • Page 273 and 274:

    APPENDIX C: SWOT ANALYSIS has also

  • Page 275 and 276:

    APPENDIX C: SWOT ANALYSIS especiall

  • Page 277 and 278:

    Sweetland Road Sumner Road Orleans

  • Page 279 and 280:

    #· W E S Source: Genessee County P

  • Page 281 and 282:

    Tonawanda Indian Reservation 5.3% A

  • Page 283:

    Harlow Road Simonds Road Bethany Ce

Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan - Town of Liberty
Town of Seward Draft Agriculture and Farmland ... - Schoharie County
Planning for Agriculture in New York - American Farmland Trust
Erie County, New York Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan
A Vision for Rhode Island Agriculture - American Farmland Trust
A Vision for Rhode Island Agriculture - American Farmland Trust
Farmland Protection [PDF] - American Farmland Trust
Farmland Protection in the Central Valley - Merced County
A Vision for Rhode Island Agriculture - American Farmland Trust
A Profile of Addison and Franklin Counties - American Farmland Trust
Losing Ground: Farmland Protection in the Puget Sound Region
Approval Trail Plan - Genesee County
annual report 2011 - Genesee County
GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTY FARMLAND PRESERVATION ...
A 10 Year Plan For Vermont's Food System - American Farmland Trust
high nature value farmland and traditional agricultural landscapes
Planning for an Agricultural Future - Virginia Association of Counties
Rocky Mountain Agricultural Landowners Guide - Farmland ...
Protecting Farmland At The Fringe: Do ... - Farm Foundation
Tools for Farmland Protection: CEQA and Local Mitigation Ordinances
Download Presentation - American Farmland Trust
Blue Ribbon Commission for Agriculture in Lancaster County ...
Rocky Mountain Agricultural Landowners Guide - Farmland ...
Losing ground: Farmland preservation, economic ... - newruralism
Safe Routes To School Action Plan - Genesee Transportation Council
Agricultural Business Protection Plan - Customer ... - Legal & General
Personal Protective Equipment for Agriculture
New York Agricultural Landowner Guide - Seneca County