Edmonton (Alta.) - 1985 - Agricultural land management program (1985-12) by Edmonton Tower Resource Centre Online Library

SD LIBRARY

6126

I II I

6046

Agricultural Land Management Edmonton. Planning a

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Manning and Development

LIBRARY The City et &WOWS

411•1=•011•1-

k a rt

C032 6046 1985

eiitionton

PLANNING AND BUILDING

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by: Statutory Planning Unit Long Range Planning Branch Planning and Building Department December, 1985

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents List of Appendices List of Tables List of Charts List of Maps EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page

11 11 11 11

111

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Mandate from City Council 1.2 Purpose of the Report 1.3 Report Organization

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

PLANNING CONTEXT 2.1 Reference to Annexation, Urban Growth Strategy, and Other Planning Studies 2.1.1 Annexation 2.1.2 Urban Growth Strategy 2.1.3 Other Planning Studies/Development Activity 2.2 Present Residential Land Supply for Development 2.3 Agricultural Land Capability 2.4 The Role of the Region and Province 2.4.1 The Region 2.4.2 The Province

2.1

CITY POLICIES/REGULATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND 3.1 General Municipal Plan Policies 3.2 Residential Staging 3.3 Municipal Planning Commission Guidelines for the Subdivision of Rural Lands 3.4 Land Assessment Procedures 3.5 Land Use Bylaw Regulations 3.5.1 City of Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996 3.5.2 Agricultural Districts and Annexation Translation 3.6 Area Structure Plans

3.1 3.1 3.2

FARMLAND ECONOMIC VIABILITY STUDY 4.1 Approach Taken 4.2 Landowner/Tenant Survey 4.3 Survey Findings 4.3.1 Statistical Information 4.3.2 Farm Operators' Concerns 4.4 Options for Conserving Farmland 4.5 Concluding Comments

4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.7 4.8

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Agricultural Land Management Program 5.2 Agricultural Land Management Implementation Program

5.1 5.1 5.5

2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5

3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)

APPENDICES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Following Page 5.5

EMRPC's Proposed Agricultural Policies Alberta Planning Board's Agricultural Policies City of Edmonton's Position Paper to the Environment Council of Alberta on Agricultural Land A Comparison of Agricultural Districts Landowner/Tenant Survey Questionnaire Farm Survey Maps A Profile of Typical Economic Farming Units Options for Conserving Farmland

TABLES Table 1 Table 2

Potential Dwelling Units by Area Structure Plans Agricultural Land Capability by Primary and Secondary Agricultural Land Management Areas Farm Survey Results Table 3 Land Ownership Within the Agricultural Land Table 4 Management Areas Table 5 Percentage Owner/Tenant Farmed Unloads of Locally Grown Produce Table 6

2.3 2.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.4

CHARTS Chart 1 Summary of the Agricultural Land Management Program Activities Chart 2 Existing and Proposed Agricultural Conservation Policies for The General Municipal Plan Chart 3 Agricultural Land Management Implementation Program

5.1 5.4 5.5

MAPS Annexation Areas Map 1 Authorized and Approved Area Structure Plans Map 2 Canada Land Inventory for Edmonton Map 3 Primary and Secondary Agricultural Land Management Areas Map 4 Analysis Areas Map 5 Market Gardeners Map 6 Map 7 (a) Northeast Annexation Area - Agricultural Land Uses Map 7 (b) Southwest Annexation Area - Agricultural Land Uses

2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.4

111

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of the Report

This report presents the Agricultural Land Management Program as directed by City Council. The intent of the Program is to encourage the continued use of local farmland resources, allow non-agricultural development on agricultural land only if the land is needed to accommodate urban growth, provide an effective operating environment for farming, assist farmers who want to continue farming, and limit the City's financial responsibilities in implementing a farmland conservation program. Mandate from City Council

On 1982 11 23, City Council directed the Planning Department to prepare an Agricultural Land Management Program for the primary and secondary agricultural land management areasi to: i)

promote higher production,

ii)

maintain an agricultural service infrastructure,

iii)

supply technological advice to landowners, and

iv)

promote intensive market gardening for the 3,700 acres in the northeast where market gardening is an established industry.

City Council's overall objective for farmland was to encourage continuous agricultural production on agricultural land until the land is required for urban development. This objective sets out the basic direction of the Agricultural Land Management Program. Key Findings

Approximately 80 percent of the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas are prime farmland. The majority of the land in the northeast is considered prime farmland.

The Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission through the Edmonton Regional Plan and the Province through the Alberta Planning Board and Alberta Agriculture provide limited guidance to Edmonton on how the City should conserve prime farmland.

The Edmonton Regional Plan recognizes that ultimately all undeveloped land in Edmonton will be required to accommodate urban growth.

The criteria used for designating agricultural land as primary or secondary were the quality of land, whether the land is buffered from other uses, the economic viability of farms, and the relative freedom of crops and soil from airborne and waterborne pollution. For further information refer to: Agricultural Conservation Study for the Urban Growth Strategy, McKinnon Allen and Associates (Western) Ltd., October, 1981.

iv o

Two-thirds of the farmland in Edmonton is tenant farmed.

Following annexation, taxes for some farmers have increased.,_

Land within Edmonton may already be too exp_ensive to allow present farmers to expand or new farmers to start-up.

There are nine farm operators who produce horticultural produce (other than potatoes) to be commercially sold. These horticultural producers supply less than 1 percent of the Edmonton market.

Most horticultural operators market their produce through a combination of pick your own, at the farm gate or through a farmers' market.

There is a divided position amongst farmers regarding conservation of agricultural land in Edmonton.

Farm operators have indicated that they will not make long-term investments in buildings and equipment because of the uncertainty of operating within an urban environment.

Due to unfamiliarity with various City regulations and bylaws, farmers are concerned about how their farming operations may be affected.

Annexation has had only a minimal impact on the agricultural service infrastructure in Edmonton.

Recommendations - Agricultural Land Management Program

It is recommended that the Agricultural Land Management Program consist of the following activities (for ease of reference the activities are grouped under related topics): 71,f myy â&#x20AC;¢ ter,e, Fiscal

05: 41?:(1

FARM BUILDINGS BE EXEMPTED FROM BEING TAXED FOR TEN YEARS (UNTIL 2001) IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING PROVINCIAL EXEMPTION.

THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF ASSESSING FARMLAND ACCORDING TO ITS AGRICULTURAL USE RATHER THAN ITS POTENTIAL MARKET USE BE CONTINUED.

THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF NOT LEVYING A BUSINESS TAX AGAINST MARKET GARDENERS BE CONTINUED.

Land Use 4.

THE CITY'S APPROVED RESIDENTIAL STAGING PROGRAM BE FOLLOWED AS OUTLINED IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLAN.

A LAND USE STUDY AND PHASING PROGRAM THAT INDICATES (GENERALLY) FUTURE LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE FOR ALL AREAS OF THE CITY WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED AREA STRUCTURE PLANS BE PREPARED.

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT BE APPROACHED TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF LONG-TERM LEASES FOR FARM OPERATORS ON PROVINCIALLY CROWN-OWNED LAND WITHIN THE CITY.

City Regulations 7.

REVISED POLICIES ON AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION BE INCORPORATED INTO THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLAN.

THE AGRICULTURAL GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUE TO BE FOLLOWED.

THE PROVISIONS REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LAND USE DISTRICTS IN THE LAND USE BYLAW, AS AMENDED, CONTINUE TO BE APPLIED.

10.

THE AREA STRUCTURE PLAN TERMS OF REFERENCE BE REVISED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL-RELATED INFORMATION.

Promotions 11.

AN INFORMATION BROCHURE BE PREPARED FOR FARM OPERATORS OUTLINING HOW CITY BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECT THEIR FARMING OPERATIONS.

12.

FARMERS' MARKETS BE ENCOURAGED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY, INCLUDING A NEW DOWNTOWN FARMERS MARKET.

13.

THE FARM COMMUNITY (ESPECIALLY THE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCERS) BE ENCOURAGED TO ESTABLISH A CONSUMER AWARENESS PROGRAM.

..rez)7L a›.4Av T /12tre e„ed

A f/24-3 271,(in 69 9 5:6,2xe iy.e

(AP /21-a-r../arCt‘31.5 otil-/te

1.1

INTRODUCTION

This section of the report discusses the mandate from City Council to prepare an Agricultural Land Management Program as well as the purpose and organization of the report.

1.1

Mandate from City Council On 1982 11 23, City Council gave third reading to Bylaw #6904, being a bylaw to amend Bylaw #6000, The General Municipal Plan (GMP). Included in Bylaw #6904 was a new component on agricultural conversion with Objective 14.A stating: It is the objective of Council to encourage continuous agricultural production on agricultural land until the land is required for urban development. This objective establishes the basic direction and the limitation of the Agricultural Land Management Program. Agricultural land uses are interim uses, until the land is needed to accommodate urban growth, rather than permanent land uses. Policy 14.A.1 of the GMP provides the mandate for the Agricultural Land Management Program: The City will prepare an Agricultural Land Management Program for the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas to, i) ii) iii) iv)

promote higher production, maintain an agricultural service infrastructure, supply technological advice to landowners, and promote intensive market gardening for the 3,700 acres in the northeast where market gardening is an established industry.

The primary and secondary agricultural land management areas are the study area for this project.

1.2

Purpose of this Report This report presents an Agricultural Land Management Program as directed by City Council. The intent of the Program is to encourage the continued use of local farmland resources, allow non-agricultural development on agricultural land only if the land is needed to accommodate urban growth, provide an effective operating environment for farming, assist farmers who want to continue farming and limit the City's financial responsibilities in implementing a farmland conservation program.

1.3

Report Organization Section 2 provides background information. This includes: a reference to annexation, the Urban Growth Strategy and various planning studies, data on present residential land supply and demand, information on the agricultural quality of soils in Edmonton, and the role of the Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission (EMRPC) and the Province of Alberta in providing agricultural land use policy.

1.2 Section 3 deals with present City policies for agricultural land, such as: General Municipal Plan policies, the residential staging program, the Municipal Planning Commission's subdivision guidelines for agricultural areas, City land assessment procedures, Land Use Bylaw regulations and Area Structure Plans. Section 4 contains a summary of the farmland economic viability study undertaken by the City, including: methods, results, options for conserving farmland, and concluding comments. Section 5 presents the Planning Department's recommended Agricultural Land Management Program and Implementation Program.

2.1 2.

PLANNING CONTEXT

This section of the report discusses the planning context used in preparing the Agricultural Land Management Program. This includes: a reference to annexation, the Urban Growth Strategy and various planning studies; data on present residential land supply and demand; information on the agricultural quality of soils in Edmonton; and the role of the Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission and the Province in agricultural conservation. 2.1

Reference to Annexation, Urban Growth Strategy and Other Planning Studies

2.1.1 Annexation On 1979 03 22, the City of Edmonton applied to the Provincial Government for a major annexation. The City based its submission to the Local Authorities Board on the need for sufficient land for long range planning and industrial development, and on the City's ability to develop a compact urban form. On 1981 06 12, the Provincial Government approved the annexation of approximately 34,800 hectares of land to the City of Edmonton, effective 1982 01 01 (Refer to Map 1). The Province stated that this land should meet Edmonton's growth needs for 30-40 years. The decision also stressed that the City should:

accommodate 75 percent of the population growth in the Metropolitan Region during this time horizon,' avoid urban sprawl and low density urban developments, and preserve highly productive agricultural land.

In the Annexation Order3 the Province outlined the following measures to assist planning commissions and municipalities in minimizing the amount of agricultural land taken out of production and maximizing topsoil conservation: a)

ensure through the planning process that urban growth is restricted to existing urban centres and discourage low density acreage developments,

encourage higher densities in new urban communities by the use of innovative and attractive community designs,

protect the high quality river valley soils with high heat unit availability by continued use of Restricted Development Area designation, and

enact regulations to ensure that no topsoil is buried but rather is stored in park and open space areas or moved to poorer quality land.

This reference to the City of Edmonton accommodating 75 percent of the population growth in the Metropolitan Region raised concern on the part of adjoining municipalities. The Province has since outlined that the 75-25 split between the City of Edmonton and the surrounding municipalities is a benchmark and not a formal regulation.

Report and Decision Concerning the Edmonton Annexation Application, Government of Alberta, June 1981.

I.N30111:1Vd30 ONINNYld NO1NOINO3d0 A110 :398110S ±81V 'IS JO A1.101NOUJ 111 ONV1A8Vd JO AI.Nr100 V‘108A M VNOORLV1:118 JO AlN1100 Vs1083

No3obinis J010181SICI 1Vd101N1101010Eld 111 Z86 AHvnNvr JO SV NOLNOINCI3 J01.110 3H1 01 03X3NNV SV38V

SV2V CITGNNV dVIA) _

2.2 2.1.2 Urban Growth Strategy On 1981 07 07 City Council authorized the preparation of an Urban Growth Strategy4 for the lands annexed to the City of Edmonton. On 1982 02 23, City Council approved the Urban Growth Strategy in principle and directed the Planning and Building Department to prepare the necessary General Municipal Plan amendments. The Urban Growth Strategy outlined long range land uses for the annexation area and indicated those areas for which Area Structure Plans might proceed in 1982. On 1982 11 23, City Council gave third reading to amend the City's General Municipal Plan to incorporate policies for the annexed area. The amendments incorporated, with modifications, the objectives and policies of the Urban Growth Strategy. The key policy thrusts of the amendments include: (a)

Major new areas were identified as suitable for immediate initiation of Area Structure Plans (See Map 2).

(b)

Staging policies will be used to determine the optimum sequence of development for new Area Structure Plans. The policy ensures that at least a ten year supply of designated vacant residential land exists in the City as a whole and at least a five-year supply exists for each basic housing type in each major sector (further discussion on Staging is provided in sub-sections 3.1 and 3.2).

(c)

The town centre network of the City will be expanded into the annexed areas of the City.

(d)

The concept of agricultural conservation will be used to encourage the continuation of agricultural production prior to urban development, and

(e)

Future land uses in undeveloped areas will not be identified until immediately prior to the preparation of an Area Structure Plan.

2.1.3 Other Planning Studies/Development Activity Map 2 shows authorized and approved Area Structure Plans. Authorized Area Structure Plans indicate that City Council has authorized the preparation of Area Structure Plans for these areas (refer to sub-section 3.6 for further information on Area Structure Plans). In the primary and secondary land management areas there has been a limited amount of development activity. There has been only one approved redistricting and approximately twenty-five subdivision approvals. The subdivisions consisted mainly of first parcel out (ie. the separation of a residential farmstead from a quarter -section of land), country residential and the creation of small farms (eg. market gardens). From 1979 to 1981 the Provincial Government undertook a major land assembly project in the area that at the time was immediately northeast of the City of 4

Urban Growth Strategy Phase 1 Final Report, City of Edmonton Planning, December, 1981.

MAP 2 AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED AREA STRUCTURE PLANS AND PROVINCIAL LAND HOLDINGS IN NORTHEAST EDMONTON

SOURCE: CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT

AUTHORIZED AREA STRUCTURE PLANS* 8LACKMUD A ELLERSLIE RESIDENTIAL 13 • LEWIS FARMS THE GRANGE E „ TERWILLEGAR • ' WINTERBURN CIL HAS AUTHORIZED THE PREPARATION RUCTURE PLANS FOR THESE AREAS. L LAND HOLDINGS TI13erED DEVELOPMENT AREA • '

CASTLE DOWNS PLAN Approved -January, 1972

LAKE DISTRICT AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

14 MILL WOODS PLAN Approved -June, 1971

Approved .August. 1979

PILOT SOUND AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - May, 1981

CASSELMAN/STEELE HEIGHTS PLAN Approved - May, 1972

16 KENNEDALE AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

CLAREVIEW PLAN

17 TWIN BROOKS AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Approved -August. 1972

5_ HERMITAGE PLAN Approved - May, 1970

NORTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PLAN

WEST JASPER PLACE PLAN .

Approved - May, 1974 Approved - May, 1972

WEST JASPER PLACE North Area Structure Plan Approved. J une, 1979

WEST JASPER PLACE South Area Structure Plan Approved - September, 1979

RIVERBEND AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - September, 1979

SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL PLAN Approved March, 1975

KASKITAYO PLAN Approved - October, 1973

SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PLAN Approved -January, 1974

Approved - April, 1981 Approved - February, 1982

18 YELLOWHEAD CORRIDOR AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - April, 1983

19 THE MEADOWS AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - October, 1982

20 MISTATIM AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved -July. 1983

21 CASTLE DOWNS NORTH AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - November, 1983

PALISADES AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved -April, 1984

NORTHWEST EDMONTON AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - April, 1984

24 EDMONTON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK Approved. August, 1982

ELLERSLIE INDUSTRIAL AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - September, 1984

26 AURUM INDUSTRIAL AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved -July, 1984

2.3 Edmonton in the Municipal District of Sturgeon. A total of 2509 ha. was assembled An at an average price per acre of $5,500 and a total cost of $34.5 million.5 additional 323 ha. of Crown land was previously owned, bringing total Provincial holdings in the area to 2832 ha. Approximately 1537 ha. (refer to Map 2) are located within the new City of Edmonton boundaries with about 1295 ha. beyond the City's northern boundary. The Province controls approximately 43 percent of the northeast area that lies within the new City boundary. 2.2

Present Residential Land Supply for Development This section provides a brief overview of the present residential land supply for development in authorized and approved Area Structure Plans (For background information supporting the data provided refer to: The Status of Residential Land, City of Edmonton Planning, December 31, 1984). The supply of residential land (serviced lots and unserviced "raw" land) is adequate to satisfy 13.8 years demand for single family semi-detached units at forecasted growth rates6 (refer to Table 1). The supply of land for ground-related multiples and apartments in approved Area Structure Plans is in excess of 20 years supply. In addition to the land in approved Area Structure Plans (refer to Map 2), a considerable amount of residential land exists in areas where Area Structure Plan approval is being considered (authorized Area Structure Plans)7. By analyzing the potential dwelling units inventory and projecting annual absorption rates, there is no immediate need for Council to authorize additional Area Structure Plans. Based on the City's Annual Staging Report the Planning Department recommended to Council that no further residential Area Structure Plans be authorized. The Planning and Building Department closely monitors residential land supply and housing absorption rates8.

2.3

Agricultural Land Capability The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) mapping program was completed by the Federal and Provincial governments in the 1960's. In this classification soils are grouped into seven classes. Soils in classes 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered capable of sustained use for cultivated field crops, those in classes 5 and 6 only for perennial forage crops and those in class 7 for neither. Table 2 shows the agricultural land capability of undeveloped lands in primary and secondary agricultural land management areas (also refer to Maps 3 and 4, for the Canada Land Inventory for Edmonton and the Primary and Secondary Agricultural

Public Land Assembly Project Northeast of the City of Edmonton, Alberta Housing and Public Works, June 12, 1981.

Refer to the City of Edmonton's, Housing Market Report, Planning and Building Department.

If the potential dwelling units in authorized Area Structure Plans are included, the city has over a 20 year supply of residential land for all housing types.

For further information contact the Corporate Forecasting Group, Long Range Planning Branch, Planning and Building Department.

2.4 Land Management Areas, respectively). Approximately 80 percent of the primary and secondary areas are prime farmland, which corresponds to CL1 Classes 1 and 2. The majority (82 percent) of the Class 1 and 2 lands are in the primary areas, with 58 percent (18,530 acres) of this within the northeast primary area and 24 percent (7,500 acres) in the southwest primary area. Approximately 98 percent of the northeast area is considered prime farmland (i.e., corresponding to Classes 1 and 2)9, 87 percent of the southwest area, 12 percent of the northwest area, and 54 percent of the southeast area. 2.4

The Role of the Region and the Province Policies and actions of Regional Planning Commissions and the Province affect agricultural land in Alberta. The following is a brief review of Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission (EMRPC) and the Province's agricultural-related policies.

2.4.1 The Region The Planning Act requires that each regional planning commission prepare and adopt a regional plan for its region. The EMRPC adopted a new regional plan in September, 1983 and Plan was approved and ratified by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on August 23, 1984. (Refer to Appendix 1 for the Regional Plan policies relating to agriculture). The primary focus of these policies is to protect the higher capability agricultural lands in rural municipalities. The regional plan recognizes that ultimately all undeveloped land in Edmonton will be required to accommodate urban growth. However, the Plan encourages urban municipalities to limit non-agricultural land uses on better agricultural land, unless: a)

no alternative location is reasonably available;

the minimum land area required for development is used; and

measures are taken to minimize conflicts with agriculture.

The Plan also directs subdivision approving authorities (in the case of Edmonton, the Municipal Planning Commission) to prohibit multiple parcel country residential subdivision on better agricultural land, except where such subdivision consists of minor infilling of existing country residential areas. 2.4.2 The Province of Alberta The Provincial Government, in a publication entitled, Agricultural Land: The Role of the Alberta Planning Board, has outlined its position on agricultural land. The Province is committed to the preservation of better agricultural land; but 9

It should be noted that the CL1 classification is quite general and located within an area that is rated as prime farmland (CL1 class 1 and 2) may be fairly unproductive soils.

Table 1 City of Edmonton RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY1 (in units) (1) Subdivided and Serviced

(2)

(3)

(4)

Total Subdivided

Approved ASPs2 (Unserviced, Unsubdivided Land)

Total3

Northeast WS 4 GRMs APTs Total

492 2,026 1,041 3,559

6,255 2,085 2,085 10,325

6,747 4,111 3,126 13,884

North S/S GRMs APTs Total

1,069 979 651 2,699

1,104 979 651 2,734

13,941 4,647 , 4,647 23,235

15,045 5,626 5,298 25,969

West S/S GRMs APTs Total

1,227 785 2,485 4,497

1,236 785 2,485 4,514

2,187 729 729 3,645

3,423 1,514 3,214 8,159

S/S GRMs APTs Total

1,158 1,003 2,373 4,534

1,214 1,100 2,474 4,788

5,931 1,977 1,977 9,885

7,145 3,077 4,451 14,673

Southeast S/S GRMs APTs Total

2,332 2,777 8,202 13,312

2,350 2,777 8,407 13,535

10,323 3,441 3,441 17,205

12,673 6,218 11,848 30,740

Total (excluding Inner City) S/S 6,278 GRMs 7,570 APTs 14,752 28,600 Total

6,396 7,667 15,058 29,121

38,637 12,879 12,879 64,395

45,033 20,546 27,937 93,516

City Sector (see Map 1)

Southwest

SOURCE:

Planning and Building Department, December 31,1984

'Supply measured in potential dwelling units as of December 31,1984 2 Based on potential housing mix of S/S - 60%, GRM - 20%, Apartments - 20% at 15 units per gross hectare. 3Includes subdivided and approved ASP. 4S/S - Single Family/Semi-Detached, GRMs-Ground Related Multiple, APTs - Apartments.

TABLE 2 AGRICULTURAL LAND CAPABILITY BY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS (in acres)

CL1 Class

Limitations For Crop Production

None

9190

(43%)

Minor

9340

(87%)

Moderate

Servere

5/6

Hay/Pasture only

River Valley &

Northeast

Southwest 7500

180 470

(20%)

990

Northwest

(35%)

(5%)

Southeast 4780

(22%)

Total for Each Class

Percent Total of All Classes

21470 (100%) 21470 (53%)

230

(2.5%)

1120

(10.5%) 10690 (100%) 10690 (26.5%)

630

(32%)

1340

(68%)

1970 (100%) 1970 (5%)

850

(22%)

2760

(73%)

3790 (100%) 3970 (9%)

220

(100%)

220 (100%) 880

(42%)

(38%)

220 (.5%)

2340 (100%) 2340 (6%)

Ravine System TOTALS

19000

Source: City of Edmonton Planning Department

8670

1930

10880

40480

40480 (100%)

CL1 Subclass t - topography Class 1 - no significant sustained limitation

Class 2 - slight limitation Class 3 - moderate limitation

1111

ffi

Class 4 - marginal for arable agriculture Class 5 & 6 - not recom mended for arable agriculture

Subclass w - wetness Subclass s - soil (often slaine in this area) Subclass n - droughtness (sands) Subclass* - class 1 soils (which may be particularly suited to market gardening etc.) CLI Class - degree of limitation Note areas represent broad generattzalbnS they cannot Ue.used Or oetaflea plann,ng

MAP 3 CANADA LAND INVENTORY FOR EDMONTON SOURCE: ALBERTA RESEARCH COUNCIL APRIL 1981

- AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;k

PRIMARY LAND MANAGEMENT SECONDARY LAND MANAGEMENT

MAP 4 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS SOURCE: CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT

2.5 recognizes that communities must grow, and land will be required for urban uses. The Province believes that local municipalities, through the land use planning system, should decide what is the best use for a particular piece of property. The Province has delegated the role of protecting better agricultural land to the Regional Planning Commissions through their regional plans. The Province has directed Regional Planning Commissions to require municipalities to protect agricultural land whenever possible. As the Edmonton Regional Plan recognizes that ultimately all undeveloped land in Edmonton will be required to accommodate urban growth, Edmonton is not affected by the Alberta Planning Board's policies on the conservation of agricultural land. (Refer to Appendix 2 for the Alberta Planning Board's agricultural-related policies). In 1982, the Province requested the Environment Council of Alberta (ECA) to hold public hearings into maintaining and expanding the agricultural land base and for maximizing production on agricultural land. The ECA's public hearings were held throughout Alberta in the Fall of 1983. The City of Edmonton presented a position paper on agricultural land to the ECA on 1983 12 07. The position paper outlined an urban perspective on the need for agricultural land conservation; commented on the present Provincial Government policies related to agricultural land uses; and presented a summary of the City's research on the subject of agricultural land management within its own corporate limits. The ECA released in December, 1984 a summary report with recommendations entitled, "Maintaining and Expanding the Agricultural Land Base in Alberta". The City of Edmonton subsequently prepared another position paper responding to the ECA Report. While the City generally concurs with most of the recommendations of the Report, there is strong opposition to recommendations dealing with compensation payments for loss of agricultural land and accommodating country residential uses. (Refer to Appendix 3 for further information).

3.1 3.

CITY POLICIES/REGULATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND

This section of the report discusses City policies that affect agricultural land, including: General Municipal Plan policies, the residential staging program, the Municipal Planning Commission's subdivision guidelines for agricultural areas, the City's land assessment procedures, Land Use Bylaw regulations and Area Structure Plans. 3.1

General Municipal Plan Policies

The following objectives and policies on agricultural conservation were incorporated into the General Municipal Plan (GMP) on 1982 11 23: It is the objective of Council: 14.A To encourage continuous agricultural production on agricultural land until the land is required for urban development. It is therefore the policies of Council that: 14.A.1 The City will prepare an Agricultural Land Management Program for the primary and secondary land management areas shown in Map 4 to, i)

promote higher production,

ii)

maintain an agriculture service infrastructure,

iii)

supply technological advice to landowners, and

iv)

promote intensive market gardening in the 3,700 acre area in the northeast where market gardening is an established industry.

14.A.2 The City will minimize premature and unnecessary fragmentation of agricultural land through appropriate regulations in the Land Use Bylaw for the "AG" Agricultural District, and an Agricultural Land Management Program. 14.A.3 The City will consider the potential for agricultural production, and the economic viability of farming operations when determining the staging of Area Structure Plans. 14.A.4 The City will review current assessment and taxation policies to determine if these policies are consistent with objectives for Agricultural Land Management in the General Municipal Plan. With Objective 14.A, Council considers agricultural land as an interim use until the land is required for urban development. To follow Council's direction, the Agricultural Land Management Program must be prepared within the context of agricultural land as an interim use.

3.2 Policy 14.A.1 provides the mandate and outlines what should be considered in preparing an Agricultural Land Management Program. In Policy 14.A.1 the concept of primary and secondary land management areas is discussed. The primary and secondary agricultural land management areas (refer to Map 4) were delineated based on the quality of the land for agricultural use, degree of buffering and existing land uses. The intent of dividing the lands into primary and secondary areas was to have the secondary areas developed prior to the primary areas. In reviewing development proposals, City Council has not differentiated between primary and secondary agricultural land management areas. Consequently, this strategy of having the secondary areas developed prior to the primary area has not been followed by City Council and acts only as guidance. Policy 14.A.1 should be re-written to reflect this. Policy 14.A.2 limits the premature fragmentation of agricultural land for nonfarm, non-rural development through regulations in the Land Use Bylaw under the "AG" Agricultural District. The Agricultural District in the Land Use Bylaw treats agricultural and related uses as the primary activity. However, compatible uses (e.g., commercial greenhouses) are allowed. Most of Edmonton's undeveloped land is districted for agricultural purposes. Policy 14.A.3 deals with how agricultural conservation is tied into the City's staging program (the City's staging program is discussed in Sub-Section 3.2). In determining the staging of Area Structure Plans, the potential for agricultural production and the economic viability of farming operations are considered. It was intended that secondary agricultural land management areas would be developed prior to the primary areas. However, the staging program has revised this. Presently, in the staging program, the agricultural potential of undeveloped land is ranked on a yes/no basis. If all or some of the areas falls within the primary land management areas, this is a factor against authorization. If all or most of the areas falls within the secondary land management areas, it means that agricultural considerations do not impede the authorization of an Area Structure Plan. In addition to agricultural potential, other staging criteria are: City-wide land supply, sector land supply, degree of development by sector, fiscal impact, nonrenewable resource potential, and environmental hazards. Policy 14.A.3 should be revised to reflect these changes. Policy 14.A.4 outlines that the City will review current assessment and taxation policies. This task has been undertaken as part of the Agricultural Land Management Program. To promote continued agricultural production until the land is needed to accommodate urban development, the Agricultural Land Management Program recommends taxation changes. These taxation changes deal with exempting farm buildings from property taxes and exempting market gardens from business taxes. Policy 14.A.4 should be revised to reflect these changes. Revised- GMP objectives and policies for the Agricultural Conservation component are discussed in Sub-Section 5.1, Point 10.

3.2

Residential Staging To reduce the cost of tax-supported public services, the City adopted a residential staging program, as outlined in Policy 5.F.1 of the GMP: The City will authorize the staged preparation of new residential Area Structure Plans in suburban areas as required by population

3.3 growth and housing demand. A review of the land supply will be conducted annually and additional Area Structure Plans will be authorized where warranted by the criteria set out in Chart 5.6. The GMP requires that an Annual Staging Report be produced by the City which analyzes residential land supply and demand and indicates if the authorization of new Area Structure Plans is required in any part of the City. Charts 5.5 and 5.6 in the GMP specify inventory levels and provide for the analysis of environmental, agricultural and fiscal constraints in order to pinpoint the most logical location for new Area Structure Plan authorization. In 1983 the Planning and Building Department prepared the City's first staging report10. Based on an analysis of residential land supply and demand the Planning and Building Department recommended that no further residential Area Structure Plans be authorized by Council in 1983. Since 1983, the Planning and Building Department has recommended that no additional Area Structure Plans be authorized. However, problems have surfaced with the staging program since it appears that Council has not supported the staging approach in the GMP (ie., staging at the ASP authorization level). Council authorized the Blackmud ASP against the recommendations of the Planning and Building Department and authorized the Ellerslie ASP without first referring the request by the applicant to the Planning and Building Department for comment. In effect, Council appears to view authorizations of an ASP as an automatic process, with an actual commitment to the ASP development coming at the approval stage. The decision in February 1984 to strike consideration of the Lewis Farms ASP at the approval stage is consistent with this approach by Council.

3.3

Municipal Planning Commission Guidelines for the Subdivision of Rural Lands On 1982 02 25 the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) adopted guidelines specifically for the subdivision of rural lands. For country residential subdivisions the MPC will not approve applications which request the subdivision of rural land solely for the purpose of accommodating country residential development unless these applications are exceptional circumstances (highly unusual circumstances will be treated on their merits as individual cases before the MPC). This regulation was approved by the MPC in recognition of the negative effects of country residential development occurring on the periphery of urban centres. These negative impacts include: the unwarranted fragmentation of agricultural land within the urban hinterland; low density urban sprawl; and a constraint to the orderly economical and efficient outward expansion of the urban municipality. In dealing with agricultural land, the MPC will only approve applications for the subdivision of agricultural parcels under the following conditions: 1.

First Parcel Out - to facilitate the common and justified needs of farming operations, the MPC may permit, on any quarter section of land not previously subdivided, the separation of the residential farmstead site with buildings not exceeding three acres (1.2 hectares) unless the applicant demonstrates the need for a greater area for shelter belts and/or other justified land use reasons.

Annual Staging Report 1983, City of Edmonton Planning, October, 1983.

3.4 2.

Small Farm - in situations where parcels are intended to become viable farming operations engaged in some form of intensified agriculture, the MPC may permit the separation of parcels for such use.

Miscellaneous - this deals with applicants claiming highly unusual circumstances.

This agricultural policy recognizes that prime agricultural land should be preserved for as long as is feasible and practical. MPC guidelines dealing with country residential and agricultural land do not pertain to lands designated for other uses nor do they pertain to undeveloped rural lands falling within the boundaries of approved ASPs. Generally, the Municipal Planning Commission has followed the guidelines for the subdivision of rural lands when assessing subdivision applications in the annexed lands. The consistent application of these subdivision guidelines will maintain agricultural land and the ensuing activities.

3.4

Land Assessment Procedures All property that is located in a municipality is subject to assessment and taxation except where exempt under the Municipal Taxation Act or any other Act. The Municipal Taxation Act and regulations made under this Act, as well as the assessment manuals, outline and regulate the procedures for assessment and taxation. The assessment and tax rolls are created, held and updated by each municipality. Within the City, the Office of the City Assessor is responsible for carrying out the assessment and following taxation regulations outlined in the Municipal Taxation Act. Presently, there are features of the Alberta Municipal Taxation Act that tend to reduce the share of property taxes paid by the agricultural industry (including farmland in the City of Edmonton)11. For example, since 1970, non-corporate owners of farmland on which a residence is located have been exempted from paying the tax on land levied by the Alberta School Foundation Program. Also, farm buildings in a rural municipality are exempt from assessment and taxation (farms within the 1981 annexed portion of the City of Edmonton, as outlined under Provincial order in Council 1230/81, are also exempt from these taxes until 1991).

3.5

Land Use Bylaw Regulations

3.5.1 City of Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996 The City's Land Use Bylaw, as amended, establishes three land use districts which relate to agricultural land: 11

AG (Agricultural District) is intended for agricultural purposes and to prevent premature or scattered subdivision, AGU (Urban Reserve District), and

McCuaig, James D and Heather T. Vincent, Assessment Procedures in Canada and Their Use in Agricultural Land Preservation, Working Paper No. 7, Environment Canada, July, 1980.

3.5 -

AGI (Industrial Reserve District) are holding districts intended to reserve lands for future residential and industrial development respectively, but in the interim allow for the continuation of agricultural uses.

Permitted uses in these districts are farms. However, farms which may be offensive in nature (eg. hog ranches, poultry farms, feedlots) are precluded in future residential and industrial reserve districts. A wide range of discretionary uses may occur in these districts and are listed below under the appropriate district. AG

AGU

AGI

extended medical treatment services

extended medical treatment services*

religious assembly

religious assembly*

public education services

public education services (where the site is designated school/park site by an NSP.)

private education services

private education services*

public parks

natural resource development

community recreation services

community recreation services*

protective and emergency services

protective and emergency services*

minor impact utility services

10.

small animal breeding and boarding establishments

11.

greenhouses and plant nurseries

outdoor motion picture theatres tourist campsites

outdoor motion picture theatres

12. 13.

3.6 AG

AGI

AGU

14.

temporary industrial storage

15.

outdoor amusement establishments These discretionary uses are allowed in the AGU district only if they existed prior to the effective date of application of this district. There are a number of differences in development regulations that are applied in each district. In the AG district permitted and discretionary uses require a minimum site area of 32 ha., whereas uses in the AGU and AGI districts require 8 ha. The minimum site area requirement in an AG district may be reduced to 8 ha. for any discretionary use, at the discretion of the Municipal Planning Commission. Other development regulations for these districts give certain discretionary powers to the Development Officer. The range of discretionary authority provides for the Development Officer to: -

refuse discretionary uses in the AG, AGU or AGI districts which would be prejudicial to the future economical subdivision and servicing of said lands for future urban use,

specify the length of time a use is permitted in an AGU or AGI district.

In addition, the development regulations in the Land Use Bylaw: -

require a 150m development setback in an AG district for farms from the nearest developed or proposed residence or urban service district, and

exclude buildings or structures accessory to a farm from maximum building height restrictions.

In summary, these development regulations and the discretionary authority of the Development Officer aid in maintaining the continued operation of farms in the AG, AGU and AGI districts. The regulations recognize the intended future urban use for the lands while reducing the potential for conflict between farm and nonfarm uses during the transition period. 3.5.2 Agricultural Districts Under the Land Use Bylaws of Annexed Jurisdictions On January 1, 1982, the City of Edmonton annexed 135 square miles of land from the jurisdictions of the County of Strathcona, the County of Parldand, the Municipal District of Sturgeon and the City of St. Albert (refer to Map 1). As provided for in Section 73 of the Planning Act, City officials (i.e., Development Officer) has continued, since January 1, 1982, to administer the Land Use Bylaws of the annexed jurisdictions. The use of the annexed land use Bylaws has enabled a relatively smooth transition for land owners, in that their development rights have remained largely unaffected while yet not jeopardizing the broad interest of the City. Notwithstanding the benefits of using the annexed Land Use Bylaws, the longer term intent is to include all annexed land into the City Land Use Bylaw. In

3.7 the case of annexed AG lands, the transition would likely be a direct "annexed AG" to "Edmonton AG" redistricting. In general terms, the AG districts of the annexed Land Use Bylaws are similar to each other and to the City of Edmonton AG District, particularly in so far as permitted uses are concerned, where the permitted uses relate mainly to the primary protection of farm products. The range in the number of discretionary uses in each of the AG districts vary somewhat; however, this diversity of discretionary uses is not a big concern given the protection to the City afforded through the discretionary review process. In a.Ya, the ongoing use of the annexed Land Use Bylaws, specifically their AG Districts, will not jeopardize the continued viability of agricultural lands. 3.6

Area Structure Plans An Area Structure Plan provides general guidelines for the orderly and efficient development of a plan area in terms of providing essential services and facilities, land uses, transportation systems, population density and sequence of development. City Council has approved Area Structure Plans Terms of Reference. Required agricultural-related information, includes: -

types of soils agricultural capability of the land relationship and/or transition between land uses whether, and the manner in which existing land uses, including agricultural uses, will be incorporated into the plan or phased out, as development progresses.

As certain farm operations, such as intensive market gardening, can be integrated with urban development with limited negative impacts to both the farmers and residents and as some farmers have expressed a desire to continue farming within an urban environment, additional agricultural-related information should continue to be provided in proposed Area Structure Plans (this is further discussed in Section 5.1, Point 10). 12

Further information on the Annexation Translation can be received by contacting _ the Planning Implementation Branch, Planning and Building Department, City of Edmonton.

4.1 4.

FARMLAND ECONOMIC VIABILITY STUDY

This section of the report discusses the findings and conclusions of a farmland economic viability study that was undertaken by the City in 1983. Information discussed includes: the approach taken, farm survey results and options for conserving farmland. 4.1

Approach Taken

To assist in the design of an Agricultural Land Management Program the City initiated a study on the economic viability of farming operations in the annexed area. The consulting firm of Deloitte Haskins and Sells Associates was hired to assist in carrying out this study. The study objectives were: to provide a data base of existing farm enterprises, ownership information, land use data, and an assessment of their future economic viability; to establish a data base of agricultural and agri-business services; and to analyze the data and determine alternative policies, methods, and mechanisms to enhance current farm operations and ensure compatibility among land uses, with specific reference to promoting market gardening in the northeast area of Edmonton.13 4.2

Landowner/Tenant Study

As part of the overall study a survey of farm operations14 (landowners and/or tenants) in the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas (refer to Map 4) was carried out. The City supplied parcel size and ownership information for lands within the primary and secondary agricultural areas (Map 5 outlines Analysis Areas15 that were used as part of the farmers field survey). 16 Based on this information the consultant conducted personal interviews with landowners and/or tenants. The interviews were completed based on a parcel size criterion. In the primary land management areas, all parcels over two acres in size were included. Rural residential parcels of three acres or less were excluded if, upon arrival at the property, the interviewer determined the property was not utilized for agricultural production. The parcel size criterion in the secondary land management areas was ten acres or larger.

Deloitte Haskins and Sells Associates, An Economic Viability Study of Primary and Secondary Agricultural Land Management Areas, Phase I and II, Prepared for the City of Edmonton Planning, March, 1983.

Because the study focuses on agricultural operations, the consultant limited the interviews to the farm operator (whether the interviewee was the landowner or tenant).

These Analysis Areas were delineated to assist the consultant in undertaking the farmer's field survey. The Analysis Areas have no official status in terms of future Area Structure Plan boundaries.

Twenty-four landowners located in north east Edmonton and within the Restricted Development Area were accidentally omitted from the farm survey. However, as the number of landowners omitted is fairly small, this should not affect the study results.

4.2 The interviewers attempted to cover the entire study area with the survey; unfortunately, a few farm operators could not be located or preferred not to participate. Some of these latter properties were analyzed based on information from the City's Assessment Department. (A copy of the Landowner/Tenant Survey Questionnaire is provided in Appendix 5). The agricultural consultant interviewed 144 landowners and tenants whose land area comprised 24,426 acres (or 73 percent) of the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas. Information gathered from the City's Assessment Department provided additional data on 32 landowners who own 2,291 acres (refer to Table 3 and the maps in Appendix 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6d).

4.3

Survey Findings The survey findings are divided into two sections. The first section deals with statistical information from the farm survey (e.g., the size of the average farm operation); while section two outlines farm operators' concerns (e.g., how annexation has affected their farm operation).

4.3.1 Statistical Information Statistical information on the farm survey is summarized below (further explanation is provided in the consultant's reports): Land Ownership -

47.9% of the farmland is owned by private individuals, 36.7% is owned by limited companies (including incorporated farms) and 14.9% is owned by the Provincial and Federal governments (refer to Table 4 for further information).

8% of the limited com anies are farm companies; while 23% are land development companies

33% of the farmed acreage is farmed by owner operators and 67% is tenantfarmed. The lowest percentage (30) of owner farmed land is in the north east (refer to Table 5).

98% (40 out of 41 responses) indicated that their property is not under an option to purchase agreement.

90% (18 out of 20 responses) replied that they do not have an agreement for sale on their property.

Taxes -

92 (81%) of the farm operators stated that their property taxes have increased since annexation. However, according to the Assessment Department, following annexation taxes on privately owned farmland have

The consultant derived this breakdown between farm and development company ownership on the basis of whether the companies name had farm or development in it.

sN4 0449.% 1Pa re. 4

. ,c ek IragMENIPP:' -,7-r.743aarreekg,t-ti:b

4.741PAVIV Mair-4141.Af5v.ae.114ViiniO

1 MAP 5 ANALYSIS AREAS *ANALYSIS AREAS WERE USED AS PART OF THE FARMERS FIELD SURVEY SOURCE: URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY PHASE I REPORT crry OF EDMONTON DECEMBER, 1981

TABLE 3 FARM SURVEY RESULTS (in Acres) PRIMARY ANALYSIS AREA

1 2 3 4 5 6 15 17 18 19 Sub-total SECONDARY ANALYSIS AREA

11 12 13 14 22

TOTAL STUDY ACREAGE

CITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY

DH & SA* INTERVIEWERS

TOTAL AREA SURVEYED

% COVERED BY ALL SOURCES

3,128 4,169 3,456 1,424 2,239 3,174 2,792 2,780 1,674 591

347 40 0 0 102 173 158 40 0 0

2,627 3,927 3,027 1,146 1,989 2,508 1,159 2,240 594 461

2,974 3,967 3,027 1,146 2,091 2,681 1,317 2,280 594 461

95% 95% 88% 80% 93% 84% 47% 82% 35% 78%

25,427

860

19,678

20,538

81%

TOTAL STUDY ACREAGE

CITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY

DH & SA INTERVIEWERS

TOTAL AREA SURVEYED

% COVERED BY ALL SOURCES

3,743 3,121 1,593 1,958 1,975

284 464 170 212 301

2,724 1,517 1,007 1,490 1,263

3,008 1,981 1,177 1,702 2,827

80% 63% 74% 87% 79%

Sub-total

12,390

1,431

8,001

10,695

76%

TOTALS

37,817

2,291

27,679

31,233

79%

% Covered By Source

Source: Deloitte Haskins and Sells Associates, An Economic Viability Study of Primary and Secondary Agricultural Land Management Areas, March, 1983 *Deloitte Haskins and Sells Associates

79%

4.3 basically remained the same; whereas taxes on corporately owned farmland have generally increased from an average of $9.48 per acre to $12.22 per acre (the City assesses a higher mill rate against corporately owned farmland). -

farm residences are taxed by the City of Edmonton, while prior to annexation they were not taxed by the rural municipalities.

following annexation in 1982, the City's Assessment Department assessed a business tax against vegetable growers, tree nurseries and greenhouse operators. These levies were phased in over a five-year period.

Land Values -

for an average farm operation to remain economically viable the operator could afford to pay up to $700 per acre for beef/grain operation and up to $2,000 per acre for market gardens18. If the value was increased, without a corresponding produce price increase, the economic viability would decrease (refer to Appendix 7 for further information).

estimated fair market value of land in the primary agricultural land management areas is $12,000 per acre.18

Farm Practices -

the average farm operation is 239 acres (this does not include land that is farmed outside of the City boundaries). The largest farming operation within the City comprises 1,174 acres.

there are nine farm operators who produce horticultural products (other than potatoes) within Edmonton and five adjacent to the City, (refer to Map 6 for further information).

the value of storage facilities for horticultural producers ranges from $15,000 to $300,000 per farm unit, with an average remaining estimated economic life of the facilities (according to the farm operators) of twenty years. The value of processing equipment ranges from $1,000 to $75,000 with an estimated remaining economic life from 5-20 years.

horticultural crops grown in Edmonton include potatoes, cabbage, peas, beans, corn, carrots, beets, parsnips, onions, cucumbers, rutabagas, broccoli, chinese vegetables, tomatoes, sweet corn, brussel sprouts, swiss chard, leeks, kohlrabi, dill weed, lettuce, zucchini, squash, pumpkins, turnips, and vegetable marrow (refer to Table 6).

These are estimated average values per acre for land in the study area as of March, 1983. These estimates are based on records and studies previously completed by the consulting firm of Deloitte Haskins and Sells. These are estimated average values per acre for land in the study area as of March, 1983. These estimates are based on records and studies previously completed by the consulting firm of Deloitte Haskins and Sells.

TABLE 4 LAND OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS ALL AREAS (By Acreage Owned)

Number of Acres â&#x20AC;¢ Percent

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

COMPANY1 OWNERSHIP

21,247.21 47.90

16,262.92 36.70

6,608.64 14.90

197.84 .50

6,325.76 38.20

5,082.98 30.70

5,160.86 31.10

0 0

5,322.45 63.60

2,867.89 34.30

42.40 0.50

138.50 1.60

8,851.53 51.10

7,216.07 41.60

1,220.21 7.00

59.34 0.30

747.47 36.90

1,095.98 54.00

185.17 9.10

0 0

GOVERNMENT2 OWNERSHIP

OWNERSHIP CITY3

BY AREA

Northeast Number of Acres Percent Southeast Number of Acres Percent Southwest Number of Acres Percent Northwest Number of Acres Percent 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Companies also include incorporated farms. Government ownership includes both the Federal and Provincial Governments. City of Edmonton ownership. Some Restricted Development Area (RDA) land is included in the total land area. Land ownership information based on information compiled as of December 30,1982.

Source: City of Edmonton Planning Department

TABLE 5 Percentage Owner/Tenant Farmed by Analysis Area

PRIMARY NORTHEAST

OWNER TENANT TOTAL FARMED FARMED FARMED

PERCENTAGE OWNER FARMED

1 2 3 4 5 6

1,107 1,022 517 480 805 567

1,513 2,905 2,487 666 1,168 1,937

2,620 3,927 3,004 1,146 1,973 2,504

43% 26% 17% 42% 41% 23%

TOTAL

4,498

10,676

15,174

30%

81 989 517 0

1,155 1,245 77 421

1,236 2,234 594 421

7% 44% 87% 0%

1,587

2,898

4,485

35%

1,328 664 330 717 430

1,396 853 677 773 677

2,724 1,517 1,007 1,490 1,107

49% 48% 33% 48% 39%

TOTAL

3,039

4,376

7,845

39%

Overall

9,124

17,950

27,504

33%

PRIMARY SOUTHWEST 15 17 18 19

TOTAL SECONDARY 11 12 13 14 22

SOURCE: Deloitte Haskins and Sells Associates, An Economic Viability Study of the Primary and Secondary Agricultural Land Management Areas, Phase 1, Prepared for the City of Edmonton Planning, March, 1983

CYNII

We )

oirmrs rtara-aw; "or—cmo • be.ifrae.#41 ll

t-zawaliggialum walk EV, ‘lin um= -‘...mbviga i

itlfik-zittePAN -,V.tir,Vatr.SE5g, 4 vitreggitg

MARKET GARDENS WITHIN CITY LIMITS 1. BIRCHLAND BERRY FARM 2. BRENNEIS VEGETABLE FARM 3. WALLY GAHR 4. KING'S VEGERABLE SQUARE 5. KOZUB MARKET GARDEN 6. KULMANN'S 7. PAT MCM ANUS 8. SIMON'S VEGETABLE FARM 9. ZAYCHUK NURSERY, VEGETABLE AND BERRY FARM

•

MARKET GARDENS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS A EASTPARK GREENHOUSES LTD. • B HOLE'S GREENHOUSES AND GARDENS C ST. ALBERT GREENHOUSES FRUIT AND VEGETABLES SUNNYSIDE15E VRIENDS ORGANIC VEGETABLES

I MAP 6 EDMONTON

MARKET GARDENERS SOURCE : ALBERTA AGRICULTURE

4.4 -

the majority of specialized enterprises (more than 80% gross sales) are grain, beef, vegetable, dairy, and sod.

the majority (56%) of respondents have less than $20,000 in gross sales from farm production and 21.5% of the respondents have gross sales exceeding $100,000.

Marketing -

marketing of horticultural crops is carried out in five ways: (1) pick your own, (2) at the farm gate, (3) through a farmers market, (4) to a wholesaler, and (5) through the Edmonton Potato Growers Association.

currently four outlets exist for direct sales of market garden produce within the City. These outlets are the Edmonton Farmers' market (97 Street), Clarke Stadium, Capilano Mall, and Strathcona farmers' market.

local growers supply less than 1% of the horticultural produce (other than potatoes) for the total Edmonton market.

46% of the farm operators market their produce in Edmonton.

27% of the farm operators purchase their supplies in Edmonton.

54% of vegetable and 8% of potato sales are handled through the farm gate.

most horticultural operators market their produce through a combination of pick your own, at the farm gate or through farmers' markets because these methods entail limited processing costs, reduce storage loss and capital costs, and result in quick cash returns.

Agri-business Services -

Bar-XO Veterinary Clinic is the only agricultural business in the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas.

seven agricultural businesses are located in the annexed area but are outside of the primary and secondary areas. They are: Ouellette Packers Ltd., Edmonton Potato Growers Ltd., Alberta Wheat Pool Grain Elevator, U.F.A. Bulk Stations, Clover Bar Machinery Industries Ltd. (a feed mill), Unifeed Feed Mill, and U.G.G. Farm Supply. All operators were contacted and they generally indicated that their farm services and their clientele have not changed as a result of annexation.

Land Use -

Maps 7a and 7b shows the agricultural land uses in the primary northeast and southwest agricultural land management areas.

the following is a summary of the land uses in the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas:

TABLE 6 Unloads of Locally Grown Produce, By Month (1979) ('000 lb.)

Product Artichokes Asparagus Beans Broccoli Brussel Sprouts

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Cabbage

Carrots

717

364

452

701

568

323

261

464

481

436

Cauliflower Celery Corn

148

276

148

220

208

101

169

131

107

3311

3036

2542

3184

2296

3435

2119

2922

Cucumbers Lettuce Mushrooms Onions Parsnips Peppers Potatoes

4155

1672

708

2922

Spinach Tomatoes

Source: HLA Consultants, The Edmonton City Market Study, City of Edmonton Real Estate and Housing Department, 1981

4.5 NORTHEAST -

Agriculture is the primary land use. Most of the land is being used for grain and hay production with a small percentage of land being used for cereal crop and potato production. In addition, there are a number of market gardeners and tree nurseries located within the area as well as a sod farm operated by Gem Sod.

Non-agricultural uses include several residential subdivisions (the largest being Evergreen Mobile Home Park), the maximum security penitentiary (Edmonton Institution) and the Alberta Hospital.

SOUTHWEST -

Agriculture is the primary land use. Most of the land is devoted to cereal crop and hay production with some pasture. There are a couple of dairies and a few small tree nurseries. In addition, the University of Alberta owns 480 acres which they use for agricultural research.

Non-agricultural uses include a private golf course located within the river valley and a number of residential subdivisions located primarily along the river valley.

SOUTHEAST -

Agriculture is the primary land use. Most of the land is devoted to pasture and hay with some cereal crop production. There are a few tree nurseries and a number of dairy operations, including one large dairy operation located in the area's northwest corner.

Non-agricultural uses include two major residential subdivisions and the Strathcona Rifle Range.

NO -

Agriculture is the primary land use. Most of the land is being used for cereal crops and hay production including some pasture land. In addition, there is a sod farm and a market garden located within the area.

Non-agricultural uses include a few residential acreages, a golf course and a small industrial development.

Government Services -

The Provincial Government's Department of Agriculture provides various agricultural related services, such as annual production and marketing courses to producers, agriculturalist extension advice, and research publications. In addition to these advisory and education services, the Department of Agriculture offers price and outlook information on all major Alberta crop and livestock products.

Some agricultural related services are provided by six different City of Edmonton Departments. For example, weed control is offered by the Transportation Department, tree cutting is provided by the Parks and

A'A' • • AAA A • • • • AAAAA ••••••• AAAAA A A • • • AAAAAA A • • • • AAAAAAAA1 • • • AAAAAAAAA • • • A AAAAAAAAA ••

AAA• • • • • AAA • Ann• AAA • • • • AAA • • A•

SOD FARM ^ ^^A TREE NURSERY A AAAAAAAAAA •

• • • • • • •

•••••••••••••••

GRAIN/HAY

tUhlIllUhlIllIffi Iii MARKET GARDEN/POTATO FARM HORSES/PRIVATE RECREATION

MAP 7(a) NORTHEAST ANNEXATION AREA AGRICULTURAL LAND USES

INSTITUTIONAL

•••• • • • • • • RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OTHER USES RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREA SOURCE: CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT FIELD SURVEY SUMMER, 1982

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a . • • • • • • • • .

• • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 0 .6. . . ..................

•

.41 .0 . 0 .0%

•

• •

•

• 41 .0

•

• • • • • • • 0 0 0 .. . ..

111 . 8 . 0. 0 41. 1 ....I. ▪ •••••• • • •• •••••

•••••••-•‘•••••••••••••••• • • • • • • 41, • 0 IP • • 4 . : • • • • :v÷. t s • ...• vr ir

• . •• ••• • • •

Nag= TREE NURSERY :•:':•:•:•:•:' GRAIN/HAY

em.wyc:

•

• ..e

• • •al

LIVESTOCK

\\ HORSES/PRIVATE RECREATION au•sa sileas RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

MAP 7(b) SOUTHWEST ANN EXATI ON AREA AGRICULTURAL LAND USES

RESOURCE EXTRACTION OTHER USES RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREA

SOURCE CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT FIELD SURVEY SUMMER, 1982

4.6 Recreation Department, and erosion control is available from the Water and Sanitation Department. Farmers are concerned about the number of different City Departments that they have to deal with. 4.3.2 Farm Operators' Concerns The following information on farm operators' concerns was derived from the farm survey results, from discussions with various farm organizations (e.g., TOPSOIL, a northeast Edmonton farmers' association), and from reviewing submissions by various organizations to the Environment Council of Alberta hearings on maintaining and expanding the agricultural land base in Alberta". Farm Community -

there is a divided position amongst farmers regarding the conservation of agricultural land in Edmonton. A farmer located in the urban shadow must decide whether to continue farming as urban development gradually encroaches on the farm operation or to relocate. The decision to relocate will be affected by many factors such as: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

opportunity cost of unrealized land value, farmer's age, size of farm, condition of equipment and buildings, potential future farm growth, social costs of relocating, general economics of relocating vis-a-vis not relocating, and taxation levels.

Land Ownership -

with the estimated market value of land at $12,000 per acre in the annexed area and the estimated agricultural value of $800 per acre, 21 farmers feel the price of farmland for purchase or lease may already be prohibitive for a new farmer wishing to start-up in the agricultural industry, or for any existing farmer to expand his/her existing operation.

Urban Pressures farm operators indicated that they will not make long term investments in buildings and equipment because of the uncertainty of operating in an urban environment. Operators are now working under a planning horizon of 1 year in contrast to their regular 5, 10 or 20 year period. This may result in a degradation of land through poor farming practices (e.g., limited crop rotation) as a result of a short-term planning horizon.

Copies of the briefs to the Environment Council of Alberta can be received by contacting Alberta Environment.

These are estimated average values per acre for land in the study area as of March, 1983. These estimates are based on records and studies previously completed by Deloitte Haskins and Sells.

4.7 -

because most farm operators are unfamiliar with various City regulations and bylaws (e.g., fire regulations, land use bylaw) they are concerned about how their farming operations may be affected.

due to urban pressures (e.g., land values, land use conflicts) approximately half of the farm operators interviewed are considering relocating outside of the City.

farm operators indicated that agricultural uses should be maintained in homogenous areas to help maintain a viable rural environment.

Taxes

farm operators are concerned that their farm buildings are exempt from taxes only until 1991 (as outlined in the Provincial Order in Council 1230/81). This has caused uncertainty in making long-term decisions regarding investment and farm practices.

farm operators felt that their farm residences should be assessed on the basis of actual services received.

Farm Practices

4.4

security of tenure is an important factor if good agricultural husbandry practices are to be maintained. Farm operators indicated that land ownership or long-term leases encourage farmers to apply more inputs (e.g. fertilizer), while short-term leases do not.

Options for Conserving Farmland The Planning and Building Department and the agricultural consultant examined programs and policies used by various government agencies that aimed at enhancing or conserving agricultural activities in rural-urban areas. A literature review indicated that various attempts have been made by other cities, Provinces and various levels of government in North America to enhance and maintain agricultural production. None of these agencies' programs provide the complete solution to the Edmonton situation. However, ideas from these experiences can be utilized, restructured, or altered to fit local needs. Appendix 8 examines various options available to the City to promote continued agricultural production. In analyzing Appendix 8 within the context of agricultural land as an interim use until it is needed to accommodate urban growth, the following options are considered the most feasible for Edmonton: (1) (2) (3) (4)

deferred property taxation; exempt farm buildings from taxation; exempt market gardeners from business taxes; and utilize primary agricultural zoning

These and other methods for promoting continued agricultural production are further discussed in Section 5, the Agricultural Land Management Program.

4.8 4.5

Concluding Comments The objective of this study is to develop an Agricultural Land Management Program that deals with the above points. For the Program to be successful and meet Council's mandate it will have to: i)

recognize agricultural land as an interim use, yet encourage continued use of the local farmland until it is needed to accommodate urban growth;

ii)

provide an effective operating environment for farmers, especially in view of the financial pressures on the farmers;

iii)

limit the City's financial responsibilities in promoting continued agricultural production; and

iv)

provide tangible benefits to Edmontonians.

A number of methods for conserving farmland have been discussed. However, an evaluation of them (refer to Appendix 8) has shown that a number of the options are not feasible for Edmonton for various reasons. To meet Councils' mandate for the Agricultural Land Management Program, it is recommended that the City implement the measures in Section 5, the Agricultural Land Management Program.

5.1 5.

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTATION

Section 5.1 contains the Agricultural Land Management Program and Section 5.2 identifies the attendant Implementation Program. 5.1

Agricultural Land Management Program There are thirteen measures that the City can implement to promote continued agricultural production until the land is needed for urban development and that would not have significant adverse financial affects on the City. These measures comprise the Agricultural Land Management Program (refer to Chart 1).

Fiscal 1.

EXEMPTING FARM BUILDINGS FROM BEING TAXED FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS (UNTIL 2001). Prior to annexation, farm buildings within adjoining rural municipalities were not taxed. Provincial Government assessment procedures requires the City to assess farm buildings. However, the Province exempted farm buildings from being taxed within Edmonton until 1986 (Order-in-Council 1230/81). Recently, on May 15, 1985, the Local Authorities Board extended this time limit to the end of 1991 (Order-in-Council No. 306/85). The City relinquishes $56,000.00 per year in taxes (based on 1985 Assessment Information) by not taxing farm buildings. This will allow farmer operators the same tax advantage as they had prior to annexation. The additional ten year time frame is recommended because:

(a)

10-15 years is a normal long-term-planning period for farm operators, and

(b)

this undeveloped farmland probably won't be needed to accommodate urban growth for at least fifteen years.

CONTINUING THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF ASSESSING FARMLAND ACCORDING TO ITS AGRICULTURAL USE RATHER THAN ITS POTENTIAL MARKET USE. The City currently taxes farmland according to its agricultural use rather than its potential market use. By continuing this practice the City will promote continued agricultural production because if the land is not farmed, the property will be assessed at a higher rate. The intent of this assessment practice is to lower the tax burden for bona fide farmers. However, with the recent downturn in the economy, a number of landowners within the built-up portion of Edmonton are abusing this assessment procedure by hiring farmers to seed and cultivate their vacant land. As long as a bona fide farmer is farming the land, the land is assessed and taxed as if it is farmland. Thus, the landowner receives a significant tax break. The City, through the Office of the City Assessor is presently discussing this situation with the Province.

CHART 1 SUMMARY OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTP/ITIES RATIONALE

PROGRAM ACTIVITY

CROSS REFERENCE

Fiscal 1.

Farm Exemption

Building

prior to annexation farm buildings within adjoining municipalities were not taxed. it is a fairly minimal financial loss to the City to encourage continued agricultural production and allow farmers the same tax advantage as they had prior to annexation.

Sections 3.4, 4.3 and 4.4.

Farmland Assessment

through taxing farmland according to its agricultural use rather than its market use the City will promote continued agricultural production because if the land is not farmed, the property will be assessed at a higher rate.

Sections 3.4 and 4.4.

Business Taxes Re: Market Gardens

allow market gardeners to have the same tax benefit they enjoyed prior to annexation encourage market gardeners.

Sections 3.4, 4.3 and 4.4.

farm community and landowners would be better informed on when and where residential development could occur. Councils commitment to considering agricultural land uses, as an interim use will not change. the conditions for when the land use may change from agricultural to urban, will be more clearly defined.

Sections 2.1, 3.2 and 4.3.

farm operators will be aware of what type of future development will occur in their area and when it might occur relative to others.

Section 4.3

Land Use 4.

Adhere Program

to Staging

Land Use and Phasing Sequence

CHART 1 SUMMARY OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES RATIONALE

PROGRAM ACTIVITY

6. Long-term Leases on Crown-owned Land

CROSS REFERENCE

the Provincial Government is a major owner of undeveloped land in Edmonton. With a recent slowdown in demand for residential development this land probably will not be needed to accommodate urban development for a number of years. To promote continued agricultural production of the land, the Province should offer farmers long term leases.

Sections 4.3 and 5.1.

City Regulations 7.

General Municipal Plan Update

as a result of the Agricultural Land Management Program a number of the policies in the General Municipal Plan need to be revised.

Section 3.1.

Municipal Planning Corn mission's Agricultural Guidelines

the Municipal Planning Commission rural lands policy recognizes that prime agricultural land should be preserved for as long as is feasible and practical.

Section 3.3.

Continue to apply Land Use Bylaw 5996 Provisions

the provisions in the Land Use Bylaw 5996 are adequate to protect agricultural land from urban land use intrusions.

Section 3.5.1

10.

Revise the Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference

the agricultural-related information requirements for Area Structure Plans do not provide sufficient data to determine whether certain farming operations should be allowed in Area Structure Plans.

Sections 3.6 and 5.1.

farm operators are concerned about how their farming operations are affected by various City regulations and bylaws. Preparing an information brochure is an inexpensive way to quell this concerns.

Section 4.3

Promotions 11.

Information Brochure

CHART 1 SUMMARY OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTWITIES PROGRAM ACTIVITY

RATIONALE

CROSS REFERENCE

12.

Encouraging Farmers' Markets

present downtown farmers' market has poor consumer access, lack of adequate parking facilities and poor handling facilities.

Section 4.3.

13.

Consumer Awareness Program

many Edmontonians are unaware that fresh locally grown produce is available during certain periods of the year. consumers want fresh vegetables and have accepted direct sales methods.

Section 4.3.

5.2 3.

THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF NOT LEVYING A BUSINESS TAX AGAINST MARKET GARDENERS BE CONTINUED. Prior to annexation, market gardeners within adjoining municipalities were not assessed a business tax. The Municipal Taxation Act appears to give the City (urban and rural municipalities have somewhat different assessment regulations), the authority to levy a business tax against market gardens. However, to encourage bona fide market gardeners the City is not currently levying a business tax against market gardeners. As it is City Council's intent as enunciated in the General Municipal Plan, to promote market gardening in the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas the City (through the Office of the City Assessor) should continue this practice.

Land Use 4.

ADHERENCE TO THE CITY'S APPROVED RESIDENTIAL STAGING PROGRAM. If Council adhered to the staging program and if the farm community were made more aware of Council's commitment to staging residential development, then the farm community would be better informed on when and where residential development could occur. This would help to alleviate one of the farm operators major concerns, namely uncertainty. Through staging, Councils' commitment to considering agricultural land use, as an interim use will not change. However, the conditions for when the land use may change from agriculture to urban, will be more clearly defined.

PREPARATION OF A LAND USE STUDY AND PHASING PROGRAM IN 1986 THAT INDICATES (GENERALLY) FUTURE LAND USES AND SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL AREAS OF THE CITY WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED AREA STRUCTURE PLANS. Presently, all unauthorized development areas in the City are designated as future urban areas in the City's General Municipal Plan. By preparing a report on future land uses and phasing sequence, farm operators will be aware of what type of future development will occur in their area and when it might occur relative to others. The type of surrounding land uses will impact certain farming operations. For example, a farm operator with intensive animal uses (e.g., dairy farming) will not be as concerned about future negative impacts (e.g., vandalism) if he/she knows that industrial development (as opposed to residential development) will abut their farming operations. This study could be prepared through the General Municipal Plan Monitoring Program or as part of the District Planning Program (or a combination of the two). This would be decided based on manpower availability, other Planning and Building Department commitments, and financial implications.

APPROACHING THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT TO ENCOURAGE THE PROVINCE TO OFFER LONG-TERM LEASES TO FARM OPERATORS ON CROWN-OWNED LAND IN THE CITY.

5.3 The Provincial Government is a major landowner in Edmonton, especially in the undeveloped areas of the City. Prior to the 1982 annexation the Province purchased over 3,800 acres of land in northeast Edmonton (refer to Map 3). This land was intended to be used to accommodate future urban development. However, since 1982 there has been a slowdown in demand for residential development. As a result, this land probably will not be needed to accommodate urban development for a number of years. Presently, the Province offers three to five year leases to farm operators to farm this land. Some farmers consider five years as a reasonable term that allows them to practice good agricultural husbandry. However, other farmers feel that a longer term would be more appropriate. As most of this land probably will not be developed within the next ten years, the Province should consider 7-10 year leases.

City Regulations 7.

INCORPORATING REVISED POLICIES ON AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION INTO THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLAN. The Edmonton General Municipal Plan is a statement of the major objectives and policies of City Council which are designed to manage the growth and form of Edmonton as it develops. The General Municipal Plan has a component entitled Agricultural Conservation. However, as a result of the Agricultural Land Management Program, the Agricultural Conservation component should be revised. Chart 2 shows the existing and proposed Agricultural Conservation objectives and policies. These GMP Amendments will be forwarded to Council in early 1986.

CONTINUING TO FOLLOW THE AGRICULTURAL GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION. City Council has delegated subdivision approving authority to the Municipal Planning Commission. The Municipal Planning Commission has approved guidelines to use as a basis for deciding whether any subdivision of rural lands should be approved. The Municipal Planning Commission rural lands policy recognizes that prime agricultural land should be preserved for as long as is feasible and practical. To promote continued agricultural production and avoid unwarranted fragmentation of agricultural land, the Municipal Planning Commission should continue following its rural lands policy.

CONTINUING TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LAND USE DISTRICTS IN THE LAND USE BYLAW, AS AMENDED. The provisions of the Land Use Bylaw are appropriate for protecting agricultural lands, and should continue to be applied.

10.

REVISING THE AREA STRUCTURE PLANS TERMS OF REFERENCE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL-RELATED INFORMATION.

CHART 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION POLICIES FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLAN EXISTING

14.A To encourage continuous agricultural production on agricultural land until the land is required for urban development EXPLANATION:

PROPOSED

14.A To encourage continuous agricultural production on agricultural land until the land is required for urban development

Council still considers agricultural land as an interim land use.

14.A.1 The City will prepare an Agricultural Land Management Program for the primary and secondary land management areas shown in Map 14.1

14.A.1 The City will utilize the Agricultural Land Management Program for the primary and secondary land management areas shown in Map 14.1

promote higher production, maintain an agriculture service infrastructure, supply technological advice to landowners, and promote intensive market gardening in the 3,700 acre area in the northeast where market gardening is an established industry.

promote continued agriculture production, maintain an agricultural service infrastructure, supply technological advice to landowners, and promote intensive market gardening in Edmonton where it is an established industry.

EXPLANATION: This wording reflects that the City's Agricultural Land Management Program has been prepared and that market gardens exist (or have the potential to exist) in most rural areas in Edmonton. 14.A.2 The City will minimize premature and unnecessary fragmentation of agricultural land through appropriate regulations in the Land Use Bylaw for the "AG" Agriculture District, and an Agricultural Land Management Program.

EXPLANATION: â&#x20AC;˘This wording reflects that the Agricultural Land Management Program has been prepared.

EXISTING

14.A.3 The City will consider the potential for agricultural production, and the economic viability of farming operations when determining the staging of Area Structure Plans.

EXPLANATION:

PROPOSED

14.A.3 The City will consider the potential for agricultural production, and economic viability of farming operations in conjunction with land supply targets, fiscal impact, nonrenewable resource potential, and when hazards environmental determining the staging of Area Structure Plans.

This wording more clearly reflects the City's residential staging program.

14.A.4 The City will review current assessment and taxation policies to determine if these policies are consistent with objectives for Agricultural Land Management in the General Municipal Plan.

14.A.4 The City will periodically review assessment and taxation policies related to agriculture to determine if these policies are consistent with objectives for the Agricultural Land Management Program and the General Municipal Plan.

As part of the Agricultural Land Management Program, a review of current EXPLANATION: assessment and taxation policies was undertaken. In the Agricultural Land Management Program, changes to current assessment and taxation policies have been recommended. These changes should be reviewed periodically to assess their impacts to the City and the farm community.

5.4 The Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference require applicants to provide the following agricultural-related information in Area Structure Plans: -

types of soils agricultural capability of the land relationship and/or transition between land uses whether, and the manner in which, existing land uses, including agricultural uses, will be incorporated into the plan or phased out, as development progresses.

This agricultural-related information does not provide sufficient data to determine whether certain farming operations should be allowed in an Area Structure Plan. For instance, if there are viable market gardeners who want to continue farming in a planned development area, measures should be incorporated into the development concept (e.g., buffers, types of adjoining uses) of the Area Structure Plan. The Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference should be revised to require that the following additional agricultural-related information be provided: -

types and percentage breakdown of farming operations (e.g., market gardens, dairy operations, grain operations).

percentage breakdown of owner-farmed and tenant farmed.

identify measures that will be incorporated into the plan to protect agricultural uses.

identify any additional development costs and/or constraints in protecting agricultural uses (e.g., servicing, subdivision design).

Promotions 11.

PREPARATION OF AN INFORMATION BROCHURE FOR FARM OPERATORS OUTLINING HOW CITY BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECT THEIR FARMING OPERATIONS. During the farm survey many farm operators mentioned that because of their unfamiliarity with various City regulations and bylaws, they were concerned about how their farming operations may be affected. An information brochure should be prepared showing how City bylaws and regulations affect farming.

12.

FARMERS' MARKETS BE ENCOURAGED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY, INCLUDING A NEW DOWNTOWN FARMERS MARKET. Farmers' markets provide a valuable outlet for farmers to sell their produce. A number of farmers use the City's downtown farmers' market. However, farmers are concerned about poor consumer access, inadequate parking and poor handling facilities at the existing downtown farmers' market. Included as part of the City's PRIDE Program is the construction of a new farmers' market on the site of the present market. The new farmers' market would be at least twice the size of the present market and would be part of a larger festival/urban market area that would include residential and commercial developments. The new farmers' market would promote locally

5.5 grown produce. In addition, there is a possibility of having year-round greenhouses incorporated into the project. At present no detailed development costs have been prepared. This will be done as part of the PRIDE Program's five year capital works budget, 1985-1990. The City should discuss with the Province the feasibility of the Province's plans to develop a farmer's market in Northeast Edmonton. If it is determined that another market in the northeast would be compatible and complementary to the City's proposed Downtown Farmers' Market, the City should encourage Provincial efforts in this regard. 13. ENCOURAGING THE FARM COMMUNITY (ESPECIALLY THE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCERS) TO ESTABLISH A CONSUMER AWARENESS PROGRAM. There are a number of market gardeners in Edmonton (refer to Map 8) and the potential for many more of these operations exists. However, many Edmontonians are unaware that fresh locally grown produce is available during certain periods of the year. To make Edmontonians more aware that there are market gardens in Edmonton where the public can purchase produce at the "farm gate" or on a pick your own basis, horticultural producers should organize a consumer awareness program. To minimize and share the costs of such a campaign, farm operators should establish a horticultural producers' organization.

5.2

Agricultural Land Management Implementation Program The Agricultural Land Management Program consists of thirteen activities. Chart 3 outlines the tasks involved and the agencies responsible for implementing these activities. The success of the Agricultural Land Management Program in promoting continued agricultural production relies on these agencies following through and implementing the recommended activities.

CHART 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Major Coordinating Responsibility

Secondary Input

prepare a list, of affected properties

Assessment

Planning

prepare/forward a formal City request to the Local Authorities Board

Planning

Assessment

continue the current policy of assessing farmland according to its agricultural use.

Assessment

On-going

continue the practice of not levying a business tax against market gardeners.

Assessment

On-going

4. Staging Residential Development

this is presently a task of the Planning Department

Planning

Prepared on a yearly basis

Land Use and Phasing Sequence

research and prepare a land use and phasing sequence study for all undeveloped land not already included in approved or authorized ASPs.

Planning

January April, 1986

Long-Term Leases on Crownowned Land

approach the Provincial Government to encourage them to offer long-term leases on Crown-owned land to local farm operators

Planning

January February, 1986

Task Invoolved

Activities

Timing

Mandays

Costs

Fiscal 1. Farm Building Exemption

2. Farmland Assessment

3. Business Taxes Re: Market Gardens

$56,000.00 per year in waived taxes

minimal in terms of manpower, however, undetermined loss in taxes.

Land Use minimal

minimal

CHART 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Task Invoolved

Activities

City Regulations 7. General Municipal Plan Update

Major Coordinating Responsibility

Secondary Input

Timing

Mandays

Costs

January February, 1985

minimal

update the General Municipal Plan Agricultural Conservation component

Planning

8. Continue to apply Municipal Planning Commission's Agricultural Guidelines

these guidelines have already been established by the Municipal Planning Commission

Municipal Planning Commission

9. Continue to apply the Provisions of the Land Use Bylaw

this is presently a task of the Planning Department

Planning

On-going

10. Revise the Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference

revise the Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference to require additional agricultural-related information.

Planning

January, 1985

minimal

prepare an information brochure on City bylaws and regulations with input from other departments

Planning

February March, 1986

minimal

Promotions 11. Information Brochure

the background information (including project costs) will be prepared as part of PRIDE program.

12. Construct a New Downtown Farmers' Market

13. Horticultural Producers Organization

help to organize a consumer awareness program

Planning

Fire, Police, Assessment, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Health, Power, and Utilities

PRIDE Task Force

Planning

Business Development

On-going

February, 1986

none

minimal

APPENDICES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

APPENDIX 1 Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission Agricultural Policies RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 5.0

Agriculture Agriculture has been a major contributor to the economy of the Region and remains its predominant land use. As a primary economic activity, it provides the basis for many secondary industries. The future of agriculture is being affected, however, by competition from other land uses. Urban growth has resulted in the conversion of substantial amounts of the Region's most productive farmland. In addition, rural residential, industrial and other land uses, reduce future land use options for agricultural areas and may cause compatibility problems which hinder farm activities. The Commission's primary interest in developing an agricultural land use policy is to ensure the continuing economic viability of agriculture. This can best be achieved by ensuring that the most productive farmland remains in agricultural use and that the efficiency of farming is not jeopardized. The Policy Reference Map (Section 12.0 in the Regional Plan) illustrates as Agriculture: Farmland Conservation those areas of the Region best suited for farm production. Most of the land defined by the plan as better agricultural land is included. Poorer agricultural land, country residential development and other nonagricultural uses are illustrated as General Rural. OBJECTIVES (1)

TO ENSURE THAT AGRICULTURE REMAINS AN INTEGRAL AND VIABLE COMPONENT OF THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FABRIC OF THE REGION.

(2)

TO CONSERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR CONTINUED AGRICULTURAL USE.

(3)

TO DISCOURAGE THE UNWARRANTED FRAGMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.

(4)

TO MINIMIZE CONFLICT BETWEEN VIABLE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND USES.

POLICIES:

Agricultural Land Protection 5.1

Rural municipalities shall, in their General Municipal Plans and/or Land Use Bylaws, identify and protect better agricultural land.

5.2

Municipalities shall, in their General Municipal Plans and Land Use Bylaws, limit non-agricultural land uses on better agricultural land. Exceptions may be permitted when:

(a)

no alternative location is reasonably available;

(b)

the minimum land area required for development is used; and

(c)

measures are taken to minimize conflicts with agriculture.

Subdivision of Agricultural Land 5.3

Subdivision approving authorities shall prohibit multiple parcel country residential subdivisions on better agricultural land, except where such subdivision consists of minor infilling of existing country residential areas.

5.4

A minimum parcel size of 64 ha. (160 acres) more or less shall be maintained on better agricultural land. The following exception shall be permitted:

5.5

(a)

the separation of the first residential parcel with a developed residence; and

(b)

the separation of the first residential parcel without a developed residence, if permitted in a General Municipal Plan or Land Use Bylaw.

With criteria established in the General Municipal Plan and Land Use Bylaw, the following exceptions to Policy 5.4 may be permitted: (a)

a minimum parcel size of 32 ha (80 acres) more or less, where no physically severed parcels exist on the quarter section; or

(b)

the separation of physically severed parcels where, in the opinion of the subdivision approving authority, the parcel(s) is rendered unworkable for agricultural purposes. Further subdivision of physically severed parcels for country residential use should not be permitted on better agricultural land.

Intensive Agriculture 5.6

5.7

Municipalities may provide, in their General Municipal Plans and Land Use Bylaws, for the separation of intensive agricultural parcels from an agricultural quarter section where the following conditions have been met: (a)

the applicant provides a written description of the proposed use and a statement of its viability in the proposed location; and

(b)

the proposal has been referred to the appropriate agencies for review.

Municipalities should, in their General Municipal Plans or Land Use Bylaws, provide for measures to minimize conflict between intensive agricultural activities and other land uses.

APPENDIX 2 THE ALBERTA PLANNING BOARD'S POLICIES FOR CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND The Planning Act

The Act establishes procedures and rules by which the orderly development and use of land are achieved. It also assigns particular responsibility to the Alberta Planning Board, regional planning commissions, municipal governments, and the individual land owner. Most decisions rest with locally elected representatives, with the Province's role largely being one of overseeing the system's proper functioning. Land use planning is not the sole responsibility of any one agency or government. Both Provincial and municipal governments have a role in ensuring the orderly development and use of land through: -

the regional plan; the general municipal plan; the land use bylaw; and the Subdivision Regulation

Each one has a specific function and varies in the land area to which it applies. The Planning Act provides for different levels of planning instruments because there are land development issues which are locally significant, while others are regionally or Provincially significant. Four Roles Supporting Conservation

The Planning Act assigns a numbers of roles to the Alberta Planning Board. There are four which are particularly important to agricultural conservation: 1.

to provide guidance on the contents of regional plans;

to review regional plans and changes to them (regional plan amendments); to approve them or not; and to make recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on whether they should be ratified or not;

to serve as a quasi-judicial body, to hear and resolve disputes between agencies on planning matters; and

in its role as a quasi-judicial body, to conduct hearings into appeals from decisions made by subdivision approving authorities.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Board have prepared guidelines by which the Provincial Government policies on conserving agricultural land are implemented. These are used by the Board when it reviews and approves regional plans. They also provide guidance to the regional planning commissions on the content of regional plans. There are three documents which express these Provincial concerns: 1.

Revised Guidelines for Regional Plan Preparation and Review;

Framework for Application of Regional Plan Guideline

and

Rural Industrial Land Use Guidelines

Regional plans are approved by the Board in accordance with these guidelines. Since all land use planning activities at the municipal level must conform to the regional plan, these guidelines have an important impact on the nature of local land use planning and development. They also ensure that Provincial policies on the conservation of agricultural land have an influence on local land use decisions. Bey Role of Regional Plans

The Planning Act obliges a regional planning commission to prepare a regional plan for its region. There are ten regional planning commissions in the province, and an area in which the Department of Municipal Affairs performs a similar function. The regional plan is a document which guides the physical development of a region. It is designed to provide a wide perspective to planning and is important in establishing a framework within which local municipal planning can occur. All municipal planning instruments are required to conform to the regional plan. Regional planning is, for the most part, general in nature. This permits the more detailed planning to be carried out at the local level. Municipalities thus have flexibility in translating regional policies to the local circumstances, while ensuring that broad regional concerns are addressed. Board Policy on Conserving Agricultural Land

Through its guideline documents, the Alberta Planning Board specifies policies on the conservation of agricultural land. There are five policy areas: 1.

Protection of the Better Lands

A major role of a regional plan is to provide criteria for the identification and conservation of better agricultural lands. Once the criteria are in place, it is the municipalities' responsibility to ensure that better agricultural lands are conserved. The Province has directed that regional plans make it mandatory for municipalities to protect better agricultural land, in their general municipal plans and land use bylaws. 2.

Residential Development in Agricultural Areas

Regional plans must prohibit multi-parcel country residential development on better agricultural lands. Country residential development is an extensive user of land, and thus it can only be justified on poorer agricultural lands. The only exception that the Board has provided for is the separation of a single developed residential parcel from an unsubdivided quarter section. The Provincial Government considers this a right, available to landowners across the Province. There are a number of reasons for such a policy: 1.

it preserves the right of the landowner to dispose of his agricultural operations and still reside on the farmstead;

it allows for the disposition of surplus residential buildings no longer required for the agricultural operations;

it allows the landowner to mortgage only a portion of the property, leaving the rest free of financial encumbrances;

it provides an opportunity for family members to participate in the agricultural operation and for the transfer of farm operations to the next generation; and

it provides for an alternative style of rural living, other than clustered residential or hamlet living.

Provision must also be made in the regional plan for the separation of an alternative single parcel from an unsubdivided quarter section, for residential use. However, this alternative policy operates only at the discretion of the local municipality. In both cases the Board has directed that only the minimum land area required be subdivided, so as to limit loss of agricultural land. In most cases, the parcel size is limited to 3 acres or less, unless a larger area is required to accommodate existing development. 3.

Rural Industrial Land Uses

The guiding principle with respect to the conversion of better agricultural land to rural industrial uses is that it should only be permitted when suitable alternative locations are not readily available. If it is feasible in terms of servicing and transportation requirements, economic considerations, and environmental constraints, then rural industrial uses must be accommodated on poorer agricultural land. It is the Board's view that municipalities are in the most advantageous position to make the necessary trade-offs between the competing uses, not only because they have the closest association with the issues involved, but also because they are accountable to the local people who will have to live with the results. 4.

Urban Fringe Land Uses

Special policies apply to the urban fringe to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, and to protect options for future urban expansion. The Subdivision Regulation under the Planning Act prohibits country residential subdivision in the urban fringe, even on poorer agricultural land. The concern is that such development would pre-empt more intensive uses and place pressures on the conversion of better agricultural land for high density urban use. Rural industrial and highway commercial uses in the urban fringe are permissible, on better agricultural land, only if no alternative locations are reasonably available.

The Board encourages annexation for urban use to be directed to poorer agricultural lands. 5.

Development Within Urban Municipalities It is difficult to impose restrictions on the change of land use from agricultural to urban development, since the majority of urban municipalities in Alberta are located on better agricultural lands. To prohibit the expansion of urban land uses onto agricultural land Would essentially result in a no-growth situation for many urban municipalities. Yet it is important to consider the manner in which urban development occurs, since premature conversion would result in unnecessary and early losses of agricultural use. For this reason, emphasis is placed on avoiding premature conversion of agricultural land for urban uses.

How Regional Plans Conserve Better Agricultural Land The regional plan is authorized by the Planning Act, prepared by the elected members of the regional planning commissions and their professional staff, and is subsequently reviewed and approved by the Board and Minister of Municipal Affairs. During the preparation of regional plans, inputs are received from municipal governments, Provincial departments and the Alberta Planning Board. Opportunities are provided for citizen involvement, through the public hearings required under the Planning Act. These processes are designed to ensure that the regional plans reflect public wishes to the fullest extent possible. The regional plan is the only plan to which all other municipal plans, land use bylaws, and planning actions must conform. No municipality may enact any bylaw or take any action or authorize any development which is in conflict with the regional plan. Nor may a subdivision be authorized by a subdivision approving authority that is inconsistent with a regional plan. The regional plan is given this authority since it provides policies that deal with regionally-significant concerns and guides growth at the regional scale. For this reason, the Alberta Planning Board has put a great deal of effort into ensuring that each regional plan fully meets its policies on the conservation of agricultural land.

How Regional Plans Relate to the Municipal Level Regional plans are policy-oriented documents, and as such their function is primarily to give direction to municipalities as they prepare general municipal plans and land use bylaws. The elements of control in a regional plan are limited to a few critical regional concerns, one of which is preserving better agricultural land. This recognizes that the authority to implement planning and land development belongs to the municipal government, and is done through the general municipal plan and the land use bylaw. Both these documents are required, however, to conform to the regional plan. The general municipal plan sets objectives for growth and change for the municipality. It is largely concerned with physical development, and deals with such matters as the location of different types of land use and the direction of future growth. A key role of the general municipal plan is to take the policies contained in a regional plan and to develop them in greater detail for application at the municipal level. The

general municipal plan must conform to the regional plan. Since the regional plan is general in nature, the municipality generally has flexibility in interpreting regional policies to suit local conditions. While the general municipal plan is more detailed than the regional, it is still not detailed enough to regulate the use of land and buildings for a specific site. This task falls to the land use bylaw. The primary role of the land use bylaw is to implement and enforce the objectives and policies of the regional plan and the general municipal plan. The Planning Act prohibits approval of a subdivision application that does not conform to the regional plan, general municipal plan and land use bylaw. It also prohibits a municipality from issuing a development permit for a land use not prescribed in the land use bylaw. In these ways, the Board's guidelines on conservation are reflected in the regional plan policies, and then translated and implemented through general municipal plans and land use bylaws.

APPENDIX 3

CITY OF EDMONTON'S POSITION PAPER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL OF ALBERTA HEARINGS ON EXPANDING PERTAINING TO THE MAINTENANCE AND EXPANSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BASE IN ALBERTA

Prepared by: Planning and Building Department City of Edmonton September, 1985

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Summary of Recommendations

Introduction

An Urban Prespective For Agricultural Land Conservation

Comments on Present Provincial Government Policies Related To Agricultural Land Use

Comments on The City of Edmonton's Approach On Promoting Continued Agricultural Production on Farmland Within Its Boundary

Conclusion

APPENDIX 1 - Farmland Protection Mechanisms In Canada and the United States

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The City of Edmonton recommends that the Provincial Government of Alberta: (1)

DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PROVINCE-WIDE STRATEGY FOR CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND. This would include allowing development on only poorer quality agricultural land (unless no alternative exists), thus freeing prime agricultural land to be put to its best use.

(2)

ASSUME THE ROLE OF BEING A RESPONSIBLE STEWARD OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND, BY SETTING PROVINCIAL POLICY INSTEAD OF DELEGATING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS. As the Province has required Regional Plans to be more general in nature, Regional Planning commissions no longer have the mandate/authority to protect agricultural land.

(3)

NOT AWARD ANNEXATIONS FOR URBAN USE ON PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND, IF POORER QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND IS AVAILABLE. In 1982 the Province awarded 59,520 acres of CL1 Class 1 and 2 agricultural land to the City. However, poorer quality land was available adjacent to the City which could have been annexed, instead of the prime agricultural land.

(4)

BE MORE PRUDENT IN ITS CHOICE OF LOCATION FOR LAND ASSEMBLIES. It is commendable for the Province to bank land to assist municipalities in accommodating future growth. However, the 1982 Edmonton annexation is a prime example where the Province disregarded the agricultural quality of the soil in locating its land assembly.

(5)

MAKE AVAILABLE LONG TERM LEASES TO FARMERS, ON CROWN OWNED LAND ASSEMBLIES THAT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. This would encourage continued agricultural production on this land, until it is needed to accommodate growth.

(6)

ASSIST/ENCOURAGE URBAN MUNICIPALITIES TO PROMOTE CONTINUED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ON PRIME FARMLAND WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY'S JURISDICTION, IF THIS LAND IS NOT NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH. This could be accomplished through making grants available to municipalities to prepare agricultural land management strategies, or providing technical assistance through Alberta Agriculture.

(7)

PREPARE AND MAINTAIN AN INVENTORY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ALBERTA, BASED ON THE CANADA LAND INVENTORY AND THE AGRO-CLIMATIC RESOURCE INDEX. This would assist municipalities in developing their own agricultural land management strategies.

(8)

ASSIST FARMERS WHO WANT TO CONTINUE FARMING WITHIN AN URBAN MUNICIPALITY BY INCREASING GRANTS TO MARKET GARDENERS AND FARMERS' MARKETS, INVESTIGATE THE USE OF TRANSFER (OR PURCHASE) OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND REVISING CERTAIN TAXATION LAWS (EG. EXTENDING THE TAX EXEMPTION ON FARM BUILDINGS).

City of Edmonton's Position Paper for the Environmental Council of Alberta Hearings on Expanding the Agricultural Land Base in Alberta INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonton is pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the - Environmental Council of Alberta's Public Hearings on Maintaining and Expanding the Agricultural Land Base in Alberta. While urban municipalities are usually not involved in developing agricultural policies, the City of Edmonton believes that urban land use and agricultural land policies are directly related. For this reason, Edmonton has taken this opportunity to present its views and provide agricultural-related information to these public hearings. This brief addresses point 1.d of the Environment Council of Alberta's Terms of Reference for these public hearings. Point 1.d concerns the potential effect of urban growth, industrial development, and the land requirements of pipelines, power lines, roads and airports on our agricultural land base. This paper outlines an urban perspective on the need for agricultural land conservation, comments on the present Provincial Government policies related to agricultural land use, and presents a summary of the City's research, to date, on the subject of agricultural land management within its own corporate limits. AN URBAN PERSPECTIVE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION There are numerous reasons why agricultural land should be conserved. These include: the protection of an irreplaceable resource, preventing urban sprawl, conserving energy, maintaining open space, preserving the local economic base, and retaining natural systems and natural processes. Each one of these issues is briefly discussed.

Protecting an Irreplaceable Resource In Alberta over 20 million hectares of land is already used for some form of agriculture. It is estimated that an additional 9 to 10 million hectares can still be brought into Alberta's farmland inventory. The best farmland (CL1 Class 1) accounts for about 730,000 hectares, with more than half of this in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor. Over the years there has been a significant reduction in the amount and quality of agricultural land in Alberta through the loss of farmland to non-agricultural uses (e.g., urban growth, natural resource development and roads) and a reduction in soil quality from soil erosion, acidification and salinization. Once agricultural land is lost to non-agricultural uses (especially urban uses) it is unlikely that the land will ever be used again for agricultural pursuits.

Conserving Energy Prime soils require less energy to farm than do other soils. The principal energy saving is due to the natural characteristics of the soil - good moisture content, depth and texture, biochemical features, good drainage, adequate solar energy, protection from the winds, and so forth. Because of these natural qualities, less energy is expended in conservation practices, fertilizer and pesticide applications, development and application of irrigation systems, and operation of farm equipment. Thus, by maintaining this highly productive,

self-sufficient soil, especially near urban centres, communities conserve energy that would otherwise be spent in transportation or energy-intensive practice of upgrading and maintaining inferior soils (Toner, 1978).

Preventing Urban Sprawl Through proper growth management, compact, more efficient urban development can be promoted. Urban sprawl costs money, and it costs nonrenewable resources. A previous City of Edmonton reportl indicated that by preventing urban sprawl by staging residential development, costs for tax-supported public services (e.g., fire and police protection) in the annexed areas could be reduced by 15-20% during 1981-1986.

Maintaining Open Space Through protecting farmland, open space can also be maintained. The open space provides a different aesthetic appeal within an urban setting (e.g. green space).

Preserving Local Economic Base Farming is often a very important element in the local economy. Farming supports a variety of other businesses, such as hardware stores, farmers' markets, grocery stores, and other retail outlets. Farming also supports farm implement dealers, feed stores, food processing plants, and the like. However, there is symbiotic relationship between the farms which need the support businesses and the support businesses which need the farms. Thus, by preserving the farms, communities are also protecting the quality and character of their local agricultural economic base (Toner, 1978).

Retaining Natural Systems and Natural Processes Through conserving farmland, communities can also conserve wetlands, small watersheds, aquifer recharge areas, floodplains, and special wildlife habitats. However, farmers have to be encouraged in their farming practices to be sensitive to natural areas and processes. COMMENTS ON PRESENT PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

The Provincial Government, in its recent publication by the Alberta Planning Board on Agricultural land2, has outlined its approach for conserving agricultural land. The Province has indicated that it does not see its role as a direct intervenor, but rather as one of providing guidance through regional planning commissions to municipalities. The Province has "directed that regional plans make it mandatory for municipalities to protect better agricultural land, in their general plans and land use bylaws". Briefly stated, the Alberta Planning Board's policies to conserve agricultural lands are:

For further information refer to a report prepared by the City of Edmonton entitled, "Urban Growth Strategy Phase I Final Report", December, 1981

Refer to, "Agricultural Land: The Role of the Alberta Planning Board", prepared by the Alberta Planning Board, September, 1983

Conservation of better agricultural lands by requiring municipalities, in their General Municipal Plans and Land Use Bylaws, to identify and protect better agricultural lands.

Regional Plans shall prohibit country residential subdivisions on better agricultural land.

Regional Plans shall allow certain types of industries (e.g., agri-business, natural resource extraction, and non-labour-intensive industries) within rural areas. This recognizes the economic, environmental, and other imperatives associated with the accommodation of industrial development.

Regional Plans shall provide special treatment for the urban fringe (e.g., through growth management strategies and joint municipal plans) in order to provide for the rational conversion of land from rural to urban uses.

Regional Plans should provide guidance, to municipalities, for regionally significant land use. This includes regional servicing and transportation corridors, regional commercial development, and regional environmental features.

Since regional plans are just now being developed and put into place, it is too early to tell if these policies and guidelines will work. However, the direction appears to be positive. The Province also has a major responsibility and impact on urban growth and urban fringe development through its annexation policies and application of the Subdivision Regulation under the Planning Act. These two planning tools have a major affect on agricultural conservation in urbanizing areas of Alberta, and the Province's record, in many cases, has been criticized. While the Alberta Planning Board has stated that it "encourages annexation for urban use to be directed to poorer agricultural lands", and the Local Authorities Board has tried to follow this direction in their recommendations to the government, the Provincial Cabinet has not always agreed with this stance when making their decisions. The major 1982 Edmonton annexation is the prime example, where the province awarded 59,520 acres of CL1 Class 1 and 2 agricultural land to the City. However, poorer quality land was available adjacent to the City which could have been annexed, instead of the prime agricultural land. The Alberta Planning Board, through its appeal hearing procedures, have on many occasions waived certain sections of the Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing subdivisions to proceed which were originally refused by subdivision approving authorities. On many occasions the subdivision approving authorities refused the subdivision application to avoid agricultural land fragmentation. The Provincial government has also been involved in land assembly programs, with the intention of providing consolidated land holdings for future urban development near major urban centres. While this type of program can assist urban municipalities in accommodating future growth, the choice of location for the land assembly has not always been prudent. The quality of agricultural land should be a major consideration in determining the location for urban land assemblies, but in the case of the northeast Edmonton land assembly, for example, the purchase of Class 1 and 2 agricultural land clearly did not consider this as a major factor. The Rural Industrial Land Use Policy Guidelines prepared by the Province in 1980 have taken a constructive step towards agricultural land conservation. As a basis for the location of industrial land in rural areas, the guidelines state:

"Of primary important in any consideration of preferred land use policies as between the urban and rural sectors is the need for the preservation of the agricultural land resource. In this regard, the Government of Alberta recognizes the principle that land having a relatively higher capability for agricultural production should be preserved for that purpose and that the fragmentation of such land for nonagricultural development purposes, whether as a result of contiguous urban expansion or otherwise, should be avoided wherever alternative courses of action are reasonably available." In addition, the Province has suggested, "that a concentrated pattern of rural industrial land use is to be preferred over one that is characterized by an indiscriminate dispersal of such development activity over a broad area. In this regard, the confinement of rural industrial development activity to designated industrial parks is considered to serve a number of valuable planning principles and is, therefore, encouraged as a useful policy direction to be incorporated within regional and local planning instruments on a selective basis." The use of industrial parks in the rural areas, as opposed to a more scattered form of development, will help to prevent the unnecessary fragmentation of agricultural land which might otherwise occur. However, in addition to the above mentioned Provincial policies to conserve agricultural land, it is imperative that a comprehensive Province-wide strategy be developed. This would include allowing development on only poorer quality agricultural land (unless no alternatives exist), thus freeing prime agricultural land to be put to its best agricultural use. With a comprehensive Province-wide parameters for when development would clearly set out. The onus would be on developers, resource developers, and the development.

strategy for agricultural conservation, the be allowed on good agricultural land would be the municipalities, regional commissions, land like to show that no other area is suitable for

Once it is realized that agricultural conservation is a high priority with the Provincial Government and the people of Alberta, demand for prime agricultural land from competing interests will likely diminish. This will allow an irreplaceable resource to be protected and help present farmers who wish to expand their existing operations or permit new farmers to get a start in farming. COMMENTS ON THE CITY OF EDMONTON'S APPROACH ON PROMOTING CONTINUED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ON FARMLAND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARY

The City of Edmonton is presently in the process of developing an agricultural land management program to encourage the continued use of local farmland resources, provide an effective operating environment for farming and assist farmers who want to continue farming within the City's municipal boundary. As a result of annexation, the City of Edmonton now contains a large area of rural land. The majority of this land is under agricultural production. A recent slowdown in demand for residential development has occurred and a 25 year total supply of lands available for

potential residential development in approved and/or authorized Area Structure Plans exists as of October, 19833. As a result, agricultural production within the City limits will likely continue for a longer period of time than was anticipated when the land was annexed in 1982. To develop an agricultural land management program, data were gathered on existing farm enterprises, ownership patterns, economic viability of farming operations, agribusiness services, and methods used by other jurisdictions to promote agricultural production. This information was gathered through a literature review and an extensive farm survey by the consulting firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells Associates (where 144 farmers within the City were interviewed). Programs and policies used by various government agencies that aimed at enhancing or conserving agricultural activities in rural-urban areas where examined. The literature review indicated that various attempts have been made by other cities, Provinces and various levels of government in North America to enhance agricultural production. None of these agencies' programs provide the complete solution to the Edmonton situation. A summary of various methods that have been implemented throughout North America to promote agricultural production is listed in Appendix I. Based upon the farm survey, a literature survey, perceptions of issues and public acceptability of options the City of Edmonton Planning Department will be recommending to City Council that the following options to promote continued agricultural production should be considered for use by the City: -

Primary agricultural zoning be placed on the primary land management areas.

The staging of residential development.

Also, discussion will be held with other City departments to determine the implications of implementing the following options to promote continued agricultural production:

Continuing the current policy of assessing farmland according to its agricultural use rather than its market value.

Adjusting the assessment of farm residences to reflect City services received (e.g., sewer and water connections).

Approaching the Provincial Government to extend the tax exemption of farm buildings for fifteen years.

Exempting horticultural operations (e.g., tree nurseries and market gardens) from business taxes.

Approaching the Provincial Government to expand farm services offered to horticultural operators.

For further information refer to a report prepared by the City of Edmonton entitled, "Annual Staging Report 1983", October, 1983.

Expanding or building new farmers' market outlets.

Organizing an advertising and promotional campaign to promote "pick your own" or "farm gate" consumer purchasing.

It is anticipated that the Agricultural Land Management Report will be forwarded to the City's Municipal Planning Commission in January, 1984. Until this time, the report will not be available for public review. Conclusion The City of Edmonton believes that it can accommodate urban growth, while conserving prime agricultural land, until the land is needed for urban development. This brief has outlined the reasons for agriculture conservation from an urban perspective, an assessment of the Provincial Government's role in developing and consistently following a comprehensive agricultural land policy, and the City's recent activity and research in developing its own Agricultural Land Management Strategy. It is important that the time and effort spent by the participants and panel members of this hearing will lead to serious and positive action on the part of the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government has provided guidelines to municipalities and regional planning commissions, for protecting agricultural land. However, the Province should ensure that these guidelines are followed consistently when Provincial decisions are made respecting land use. The City of Edmonton appreciates having had the opportunity to participate in the process and is optimistic that the recommendations of the ECA panel will lead to policies of value to both urban and rural municipalities in Alberta.

APPENDIX 4 A COMPARISON OF AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS STURGEON

STRATHCONA

PARKLAND

EDMONTON

PERMITTED USES

1.) Farms* *means development for the primary production of farm products such as dairy products; cattle, hogs, sheep and other animals; wheat or other grains; and vegetables of other field crops. This use class includes one dwelling, and a second or additional dwellings if developed in accordance with clauses (2)(a) and (3) of Section 78 of the Planning Act.

1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) 7.) 8.) 9.)

Cereal Crop farming forage crop farming the raising of live stock ranching native pasture & grazing an isolated single family dwelling unit tree farming and nurseries market gardening a registered historic site

1.) 2.) 3.)

One family Dwellings Intensive Agricultural operations Accessory buildings and uses

1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) 7.)

Cereal crop farming Forage crop farming Livestock raising (extensive) Native Pasture/grazing Market garden Tree nursery Single Family residence and ancillary buildings intended for personal use only.

EDMONTON

STURGEON

STRATHCONA

PARKLAND

DISCRETIONARY USES

1.) Extended Medical Treatment Services 2.) Religious Assembly 3.) Public Education Services 2.) 3.) 4.) Private Education 4.) Services 5.) 5.) Public Parks 6.) Natural Resource 6.) Development 7.) 7.) Community Recreation 8.) Services 8.) Protective and Emergency 9.) Services 10. 9.) Minor Impact Utility 11. Services 10.) Small Animal Breeding & 12. 13. Boarding Establishments 14. 11.) Greenhouses and Plant 15. Nurseries 16. 17.

1.)

a permitted use specified in the Recreational District under Section 38 an abattoir a cemetery a church or chapel a kennel for the boarding and/or breeding of dogs a fur bearing 'animal farm a commercial greenhouse commercial peat removal and processing a commercial rabbit farm hog raising farms chicken and turkey farms forced feed lots drive in theatres institutional uses apiary (bee keeping) dairy farm a permitted use specified in the Resource Extraction District under section 49.

1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.)

Abattoirs Airstrips Commercial Greenhouses Home Occupations Intensive livestock operations 6.) Institutional 7.) Kennels 8.) Natural Resource Development 9.) Public Utility uses and installations 10.) Recreational 11.) Any other use which, in the opinion of the Commission, is of a similar nature

1.) 2.) 3.)

Livestock feedlot Home occupations Public and Private recreational facilities 4.) Churches and Cemeteries 5.) Institutional uses 6.) Natural Resource Extraction 7.) Outdoor storage 8.) Commercial greenhouse 9.) Commercial kennel 10.) Highway Commercial 11.) Such other uses, which in the opinion of the Development Officer are unlikely to have restrictive effects upon the zone.

STURGEON

STRATHCONA

PARKLAND

EDMONTON

SITE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum site area - 32 ha (79.1 ac)

Minimum site area - 64 ha. (106 acres)

Minimum site area (Permitted use) 32 ha (79.1 ac) for Discretionary uses - as required by the Commission

Minimum site area 32.4 ha (80 ac)

Minimum building setbacks Front

- 7.5m (24.61 ft)

Front

- 125 ft from ROW C/L

Front

- 40m (131.2 ft)

Front

- 45m (150 ft)

Back

- 7.5m (24.61 ft)

Back

- 25 ft

Back

- 7.5m (24.6 ft)

Back

- 6m (20 ft)

Side

- 4.5 (14.76 ft)

Side

- 10% of lot width or 20 ft. which ever is less

Side

- 10% of lot width or 6m (19.7 ft)

Side

- 10% of lot width or 6m (20 ft) which ever is less

APPENDIX 5 LANDOWNER SURVEY Date Interviewer A. General 'Parcel No.

1. Legal Description

Analysis Area

2. Registered Owner

0Company 0Individual(s) EDInstitutional (Gov't or utility)

E:)Registered Owner °Shareholder

3. Person Interviewed

Ep Tenant or lessee (1(1u/table Owner

address

Telephone No. naoe

OTenant or lessee

address

*Telephone No.

4. Who farms the property?

015y owner only O by lessee only 0Combination of

owner and lessee

S. To be filled out if owner leases out part or all of the land. a)Type of Lease - OCash; Eirop Share; Either; EDNo Leases b)"

- °Verbal; °written

c)Length of Lease - 01 yr. or less; 01 - 2 yrs.; 03 yrs. or more Comments (Cash rent per scre, portion of fertilizer or chemicals paid, etc.):

.6. a) Are there buildings on the property? Elea Elo Proceed only if yes.

b) kesidence Only: Occupied by Downer; °tenant who farms land; °tenant only; Ovacant; Downer and tenant

-I-

c) Are the. service buildings being used? DAgricultural;

O Non-Agricultural;

EBoth; ENot Used; EDNo Service Buildings

d) If the buildings (house) is occupied by the owner, is this his principle residence?

1-1Yes EDNo

7. Pertains only if person interviewed is not farming. Do you own any other farmland located inside the recently annexed area? Elea EDNo If yes, proceed. If no, go to. OB. Legal

Leased

Farmed by Yourself

Parcel No.

Area

If leased, to whom:

8. Is the property presently under option? EYes ENlo If yes, corav.ent as co the lenvlh, future plin, etc. Camment:

9. is

th, 14.: .111

Agreement for sale on the property? Elles

ENo

If yes, comment:

Property Characteristics Crops Legal Type of Lease Total Acres Cult. Crown C.L.I. Bldgs. a) Subject Parcel b) Other Farm Parcels Owned Within the City

Chart cont nued on following page...

-2--

Crops Legal Type of Lease Total Acres Cult. Crown C.L.I. Bldps. Parcels Leased Within the C(ty

Parcels Farmed Outside the City Limits c) TOTAL

2. Cive information on the above leases.

a)Type of Lease - [lash; OCrop Share; Either; Elo Leases - OVerbal; Eiricten

c)Length of Lease -

yr. or less;

D i- 2 yrs.; E:13 yrs. or more

Comments (Cash rent per acre; crop share - portion of chemical and fertilizer ' paid, etc.):

3. Pertains if buildings in (81).

Legal

:Type,

Size

Approx. Age

Capacity

Remaining Econ. Life

Est. Value

4. Till in either 4a or 46.

a) Type of farm 1:3Mixed â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

OBeef; Chrain; ODatry; E:)Hogs; EDPoultry; ElHorses;

[hay; Other:

-3-

d) Do you use the Private Company representation?

E2 Nevel;

E2Occas1onally: E2Frequently

Comment es to the person's use or attendance at seminars, etc. sponsored by government or other individuals. Comments:

D. Future Plans 1. Age of farmer (operator). E2Under 30 031 - 40 041 - 50 E2Over 50

2. Do you have any farm employees? Dies [E]tio if yes: Number of full-time Number of part-time

3. a) Off farm employment

b) Annual Cross Income

r-, L-JNo

0 - $ 4,999

EFull-time

DPart-time

$ 10,000 - $19,999

1 0ther

5,000 - $ 9,999

$ 20,000 - $49,999 $ 50,000 - $99,999

0 0 0 0

$100,000 4. Over Comments:

4. Number of years

farming in the present location?

5. Do you consider this to be a family farm Comments:

-5-

unit? Dies

EDNo

If yes, how many weathers of the family are Involved and number of venera-. tions?

h. Lhji d. y,.

bOUus

the City's role in the future of your forming practice?

7. Uhat aericultural practices do you (or would you) perform different144n the iollowing cicumstances? - lane uwned -

2ez,t,ed for three years or more

- lend icased for one year only

7-1 !;one

OSome If some, give comments.

.Comments:

What are your general plans for the next five years, and how has annexation affected your long term agricultural plans?

Do you think you will change your farming practices now that your farm or a portion of it is located within the City of Edmonton (Types of crops. invest.went, farm supplies, etc.)? [les

Oko

Comments:

- 6 -

10: Have you considered relocating your farm outside the City? EDYes EDNo Comments:

11. Have your property taxes increased as a result of annexation? Mee ONo Comments (as to how much, Z and in comparison to surrounding municipalities):

12. Are you familiar with the recently approved City Clowch Strategy Plan? [:]No Cts-

13. Wh.it serruundIng land uses would adversely effect your farming operation?

7-1 None

7-1 Sum,r.

Comments:

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;7â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

APPENDIX 6 FARM SURVEY MAPS

MAP 6a NORTHEAST FARM SURVEY AREA PRIMARY LAND MANAGEMENT

I-•-••••••••••••

AREA LOCATION MAP SOURCE. DELOrTTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES AN ECONOMIC VIABILITY STUDY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS PHASE I REPORT MARCH. 1983

II II II

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES SURVEY AREA CITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY AREA RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREA

MAP 6c SOUTHEAST FARM SURVEY AREA SECONDARY LAND MANAGEMENT

...............

AREA LOCATION MAP SOURCE DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES AN ECONOMIC VIABILITY STUDY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS PHASE I REPORT MARCH, 1983

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES SURVEY AREA CITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY AREA RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREA

•

s,.

i• I r -;

I ••

—

.r••••3=2:1•Migr

, ;•• -•• 0 0 0 0

•••-t

MAP 6d NORTHWEST FARM SURVEY AREA SECONDARY LAND MANAGEMENT

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES SURVEY AREA AREA LOCATION MAP

SOURCE: DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES AN ECONOMIC VIABILITY STUDY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS PHASE I REPORT MARCH. 1983

CITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY AREA RESTRI CTED DEVELOPMENT AREA

APPENDIX 7

A Profile of Typical Economic Farming Units Typical Economic Units (prepared by Deloitte Haskins and Sells Associates, March, 1983) Each farm operation is different because of land base (acres), productivity of the land, markets available, the enterprises, le. beef, grain, dairy, etc., debt equity ratios and management. To determine a typical economic unit presents many difficulties because of the variability between operations and because of different demands and desires by the operator and his family. Each and every unit has a different threshold level, or that level where it can be considered viable and economic. To assist in the determination of typical economic units, information was obtained form our files and from sources which provided details on average values of land, building livestock and equipment investments, gross income, gross expenses (including variable and fixed), net incomes and typical planning periods for crops, livestock, equipment, buildings and land. The following tables illustrate the basic economic unit and low level economic unit applicable to the Edmonton area. Information was obtained from publications by the National Council on Welfare, Statistics Canada and from the Alberta Bureau of Statistics. These sources indicate the low income cutoffs (formerly referred to as poverty level) for a family of four in a rural setting was $12,035 in 1981 and $11,681 in 1982. To establish threshold levels for each enterprise analyzed, a base of $12,000 was established below which we considered the operation to be non-viable unless off-farm income was obtained. The enterprises analyzed include grain, beef-grain, dairy, hogs, potatoes-grain and vegetables. The following calculations outline typical investment and physical base. The threshold level (low income cut-off) is included at the bottom of each page. The Planning Periods refer to typical periods of time which are usually considered. To utilize the Grain Operation for discussion purposes, a planning period of 3 to 5 years is typical in order to plan which crops are to be grown on specified fields and which fields are to be summerfallowed. There is no livestock in this example so a zero is shown. Loans for equipment are typically for 7 to 10 years which is considered to be the planning period. The life of farm equipment is typically from 7 to 13 years. A planning period for buildings of 20 to 40 years is typical. A building loan is usually amortized over a 10 to 25 year period while the economic life of a building is typically 20 to 50 years. Loans for land are typically amortized over a 25 year planning horizon. The proportion of equity divided by total asset value typically varies between 65% and 85%. Because cash flow is relatively low when compared to asset value, the cash flow generated by the farm can typically repay a loan of only 15% to 35% of total asset value. This phenomena is typical to agriculture throughout the province. The six enterprises vary from 80 acres to 800 acres, and from $290,000 to $1,330,000 for investment. The value of land for these enterprises varied from a low of $700.00 per acre for beef/grain to $2,000.00 per acre for the market garden. This value allowed for basic viability of these operations. If the land value was increased, without a corresponding produce price increase, the economic viability would decrease and rapidly be eliminated for a number of these operations.

The annual net cash income varied from 1.9% to 5.3% of total investment. Farmers have, for a long time, banked on annual land appreciation in addition to their annual net income. Until last year, land appreciation has certainly been occurring. With the recent decline in land prices, the rate of return will increase slightly but not nearly enough to offset the lack of appreciation. The least investment to provide basic economic viability, from $290,000 to $340,000, was in the hog operation and the market garden operation. The highest risk enterprises are potato/grain and the market gardens because of instability in the market place, extremely stiff competition from outside the area and climate.

BASIC ECONOMIC UNIT - GRAIN OPERATION

- 800 acres, with 750 acres cultivated

SIZE

- 650 acres cropped per year MANAGEMENT

- Owner/Operator with seasonal hired help

INVESTMENT Land

$640,000

Buildings

$ 70,000

Livestock

Equipment

$120,000

TOTAL

$830,000

EQUITY 85%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue

$ 81,200

Gross Expenses

$ 65,000

(80%)

Net Income

$ 16,200

(1.9% of total investment)

PLANNING PERIODS Crop Rotations

3-5 years

Livestock

0 years

Equipment

7-10 years

Buildings

20-40 years

Land

25+ years

LOW INCOME CUT-OFF

Size

600 acres

Investment

$614,000

Gross Revenue

$ 60,000

Net Income

$ 12,000

II.

BASIC ECONOMIC UNIT - BEEF/GRAIN OPERATION

SIZE

- 800 acres, with 750 acres cultivated - 50 cows (cow-calf operation) - 200 acres to hay and pasture

MANAGEMENT

- Owner/Operator with seasonal hired help

INVESTMENT Land

$560,000

Buildings

$ 80,000

Livestock

$ 45,000

Equipment

$125,000

TOTAL

$810,000

EQUITY 80%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue

$ 87,500

Gross Expenses

$ 70,000

(80%)

Net Income

$ 17,500

(2.1% of total investment)

PLANNING PERIODS Crop Rotations

3-6 years

Livestock

7-8 years

Equipment

7-10 years

Buildings

20-30 years

Land

25+ years

LOW INCOME CUT-OFF

Size

550 acres, with 35 cows

Investment

$555,000

Gross Revenue

$ 60,000

Net Income

$ 12,000

III.

BASIC ECONOMIC UNIT - DAIRY (FLUID) OPERATION

SIZE

- 320 acraes, with 300 acres cultivated - 35 milking cows

MANAGEMENT

- Owner/Operator with part-time help throughout the year

INVESTMENT Land

$320,000

Buildings

$ 90,000

Livestock

$ 90,000

Equipment

$ 70,000

TOTAL

$570,000

(including quota) EQUITY 75%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue

$ 87,500

Gross Expenses

$ 68,200

(78%)

Net Income

$ 19,300

(3.3% of total investment)

PLANNING PERIODS Crop Rotations

3-6 years

Livestock

7-8 years

Equipment

7-10 years

Buildings

20-30 years

Land

25+ years

LOW INCOME CUT-OFF

Size

200 acres, with 22 milking cows

Investment

$354,000

Gross Revenue

$ 54,000

Net Income

$ 12,000

IV.

BASIC ECONOMIC UNIT - HOG OPERATION

SIZE

- 160 acres, with 150 acres cultivated - 30 brood sows, farrow to finish

MANAGEMENT

- Owner/Operator with part-time help throughout the year

INVESTMENT Land

$160,000

Buildings

$ 90,000

Livestock

$ 15,000

Equipment

$ 25,000

TOTAL

$290,000

EQUITY 70%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue

$ 96,000

Gross Expenses

$ 81,600

(85%)

Net Income

$ 15,400

(5.3% of total investment)

PLANNING PERIODS Crop Rotations

3-5 years

Livestock

3 years

Equipment

0 years

Buildings

15-20 years

Land

25+ years

LOW INCOME CUT-OFF

Size

125 acres, with 24 brood sows

Investment

$226,000

Gross Revenue

$ 74,000

Net Income

$ 12,000

BASIC ECONOMIC UNIT - POTATOES/GRAIN OPERATION

SIZE

- 640 acres, with 600 acres cultivated - 100 acres potatoes - 500 acres grain

MANAGEMENT

- Owner/Operator with 3 to 4 full-time hired help

INVESTMENT Land

$ 960,000

Buildings

$ 170,000

Livestock

Equipment

$ 200,000

TOTAL

$1,330,000 EQUITY 65%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue

$215,000

Gross Expenses

$183,000

(85%)

Net Income

$ 32,000

(2.4% of total investment)

PLANNING PERIODS Crop Rotations

3-4 years

Livestock

0 years

Equipment

7-10 years

Buildings

15-30 years

Land

25+ years

LOW INCOME CUT-OFF

Size

240 acres total, with 37 acres potatoes and 183 acres crop

Investment

$500,000

Gross Revenue

$ 81,000

Net Income

$ 12,000

VI.

BASIC ECONOMIC UNIT - MARKET GARDEN OPERATION

SIZE

- 80 acres, with 75 cultivated - 20 acres of vegetables, balance leased out to neighbouring farm for grain

MANAGEMENT

- Owner/Operator with a lot of seasonal hired help

INVESTMENT Land

$160,000

Buildings

$110,000

Livestock

Equipment

$ 70,000

TOTAL

$340,000

EQUITY 65%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue

$ 61,000

Gross Expenses

$ 45,800

(75%)

Net Income

$ 15,200

(4.4% of total investment)

PLANNING PERIODS Crop Rotations

3-5 years

Livestock

0 years

Equipment

7-10 years

Buildings

15-30 years

Land

25+ years

LOW INCOME CUT-OFF

Size

65 acres, with 16 acres of vegetables

Investment

$268,000

Gross Revenue

$ 48,000

Net Income

$ 12,000

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND OPTION

DESCRIPTION

IMPLICATIONS

EVALUATION

Taxes

- there are a number of different options available under this heading, such as property tax reduction and deferred property taxation:

1.a.

Property Tax Reduction

- this is a form of property taxation in which special classes of property are taxed at current use value rather than market value. In some jurisdictions when an owner changes the land use to a non-qualifying use, the owner has to pay a rollback tax.

- the City already taxes farmland at its current use value rather than its potential market value. The City does not have a rollback tax.

- as this tax measure encourages agricultural production, the City should continue with it.

1.b.

Deferred Taxation

- this allows landowners to voluntary sign up and commit their farms to agricultural uses for a certain time period. Participants then receive a rebate on municipal taxes. If the land is taken out of production agricultural within a specified time frame, then a penalty for breaking the agreement is imposed.

property deferred - a taxation program can be viewed primarily as a financial incentive rather than a direct means of protecting agricultural land. This is especially the case when profits from developments non-farm residential (eg. development) are far greater than tax-assisted returns from farming.

- according to Provincial Legislation taxing arrangements can only be done on a year to year basis. As the defferred property taxation concept works over a number of years, Alberta legislation precludes the use of this option.

Property

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND OPTION

DESCRIPTION

IMPLICATIONS

EVALUATION

1.c.

Exempt Farm Buildings From Taxation

- prior to annexation, farm buildings within adjoining municipalities were not taxed. Provincial Government assessment regulations require the City to tax farm buildings. However, with Order in Council 1230/81, the Province has exempted farm buildings (within Edmonton) from being taxed until 1986.

- the City foregoes $62,397.12 (based on 1983 assessment information) per year in taxes by not taxing farm buildings. The City would have to apply to the Local Authorities Board if it wanted to have the farm building exemption extended.

- the City should allow farm operators to have the same tax advantage as they had prior to annexation. (Further discussion of this option is provided in Section 5, Point 2).

1.d.

Exempt Vegetable Growers, Tree Nurseries and Greenhouse Operators From a Business Tax

- prior to annexation vegetable growers, tree nurseries and greenhouse operators within the adjoining municipalities were not taxed. Following annexation the City's Assessment Department assessed a business tax against these businesses. However, many of these assessments were later appealed and rescinded.

- the City would forego $16,000 per year (based on assessment 1983 information) in taxes by not assessing a business tax against vegetable growers, tree nurseries and greenhouse operators.

- if the City wants to encourage agricultural production, these farm operations should not be assessed a business tax.

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND OPTION

Development Rights

2.a. Public Purchase of Development Rights

DESCRIPTION

IMPLICATIONS

EVALUATION

- this is a method of regulating land development under which certain uses are subject to severe restrictions while others are planned for development. There are various permutations of the development rights concept, such as transfer of development rights and purchase of development rights: - in the public purchase of development rights the government purchases from landowners the development rights to their For example, in land. Suffolk County, New York, the County government, using proceeds from 30 year bonds, purchased development rights to farmland. The development rights vary from location to location county, within the depending upon the value of the land for its highest and best use as opposed to its value for agricultural purposes only. It is the difference between these two that determines the value of the development rights.

- there are 27,005 acres in Edmonton's primary land management areas. The estimated market value of the land is $12,000 per acre. The estimated agricultural value of the land is $800 per acre. Therefore, total program development right cost is 27,005 x ($12,000 4800) = $302,456,000 (and this cost does not include program administration costs).

- the costs involved make this option prohibitive.

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND OPTION

2.b. Transfer of Development Rights

DESCRIPTION

of - with transfer development rights landowners in controlled development areas are allowed to sell their development rights to landowners in a development area. By acquiring the development rights the landowner in the development area is permitted to develop at a higher density than if the development additional rights were not purchased.

IMPLICATIONS

- the transfer of development rights concept will only work if there are willing sellers and willing buyers of rights. development Edmonton has an estimated 20 year supply of approved and authorized residential development.

EVALUATION

- This option considers that landowners have an inherent right to develop (which is not the case in Canada) and that land is to be conserved for agricultural uses in perpetuity. As City Council considers agricultural uses as interim uses until the land is needed for urban development, this option is not feasible for Edmonton. Other issues associated with the transfer of development rights include: (1)

the need for a system for recording transactions, since it would be difficult to interpret density rights as real property, and therefore use the Land Titles system to record transactions.

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND

OPTION

Agricultural Banking

Land Use Controls

DESCRIPTION

Land

- this concept involves the creation of an agricultural land authority with the power to acquire fee simple interests in land by or purchase, gift, expropriation pursuant to local legislation. The authority then manages the lands, leases them to farmers, or sells them to farmers subject to appropriate development right retention or restricted covenants. - two forms of land use controls that are used for conserving agricultural exclusive are: land agricultural zoning and agricultural primary zoning:

IMPLICATIONS

- similar to the public purchase of development rights, the monetary even implications of acquiring the farmland in the primary agricultural land management areas would be prohibitive. With 27,005 acres in the primary areas at an estimated market value (in 1983) of $12,000 per acre the total cost would be $324,060,000

EVALUATION

(2)

the need for the City to establish a density bank and act as brokers.

(3)

density rights will have to be interpreted as a commodity, bringing into play a whole series of external legislation, including the questions of taxation.

- the costs involved make this option prohibitive.

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND OPTION

DESCRIPTION

IMPLICATIONS

EVALUATION

4.a.

Exclusive Agricultural Zoning

- exclusive agricultural zoning is used to preempt the urbanization of agricultural land. This technique treats agricultural and related land uses as long-term activities rather than temporary uses. Within the exclusive agricultural zone, farming is the priority activity.

- exclusive agricultural zoning of this nature would have to be imposed by the Provincial government. Administratively, exclusive agricultural zoning would be similar in nature to the RDA restrictions.

- as Council treats agricultural and related land uses as interim uses (not longterm activities) this option is not feasible.

4.b.

Primary Zoning

agricultural - Primary zoning treats agricultural and related uses as the primary activity. However, compatible uses (eg. commercial greenhouses) are allowed.

- primary agricultural zoning (under the City's AG district) is the type of land use control presently used by the City of Edmonton.

- the City should continue treating agricultural land in undeveloped areas as a primary activity. This will to help avoid unwarranted fragmentation of agricultural land, low density urban sprawl, and for allow orderly economical and efficient outward expansion.

Agricultural

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND OPTION

Agricultural Districts

DESCRIPTION

- agricultural districts are similar in their effect to agricultural exclusive zoning, but differ in their administration. An agricultural district is an encapsulated unit of agricultural land, usually comprising a large area of land (eg., 500 acres). Within the agricultural district landowners agree to keep their land in production, agricultural while the government agrees not to allow nonfarm development for a certain period of time, and to avoid regulations and taxes that will materially reduce their chances to continue farming.

IMPLICATIONS

- through the Area Structure Plan process the City could prepare an agricultural plan. structure area However, as ASPs can be amended at any time, farmers would need some form of assurance that development non-farm would not be allowed for a certain time frame.

EVALUATION

- until a land use plan and phasing program is prepared for all undeveloped areas, it is premature to designate agricultural districts.