Edmonton (Alta.) - 1986 - Agricultural land management program (1986-05)

I

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

I ' '7L

-

I , .A,., ,

CA,

,

I

d

nton ANDBUDING

p

I

C030 5728

i'

1986 C.1

I I

I

I

AND BUILDING

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Planning and Building ep,'tmnt

LIBRARY

The City of Edmonton

Prepared by: Statutory Planning Unit Long Range Planning Branch Planning and Building Department May, 1986

Ii Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...............................

List of Appendices ..........................................................

List of Tables ..............................................................

List of Charts ..............................................................

List of Maps ...............................................................

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................

i ii ii 1

H iii

1.

INTRODUCTION ......................................................

1.1 Mandate from City Council ........................................

1.2 Purposeof this Report ............................................

1.3 Report Organization ..............................................

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

2.

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 of Alberta .....................................

2.1

POLICIES/REGULATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND ..............

General Municipal Plan Policies ....................................

Residential Staging ...............................................

Municipal Planning Commission Guidelines for the Subdivision of Rural Lands ..................................

Land Assessment Procedures .......................................

Land Use Bylaw Regulations .......................................

3.5.1 City of Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996 .......................

3.5.2 Agricultural Districts Under the Land Use Bylaw of Annexed Jurisdictions ......................................

Area Structure Plans ..............................................

3.1 3.1 3.2

3.

CITY 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

3.6

2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3

2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4

3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.7

4.

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

5.

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

I

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)

APPENDICES ..............................................................

1.

2.

3.

Following Page 5.5

Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Plan, Agriculture Section Alberta Planning Board's Policies for Conserving Agricultural Land City of Edmonton Position Paper Regarding the Environment Council of Alberta's Report and Recommendations Pertaining to the Maintenance and Expansion of the Agricultural Land Base in Alberta A Comparison of Agricultural Districts Landowner Survey Farm Survey Maps A Profile of Typical Economic Farming Units Options for Conserving Farmland

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

City of Edmonton: Residential Land Supply ..........................

Agricultural Land Capability by Primary and Secondary Agricultural Land Management Areas ...............................

Farm Survey Results ..............................................

Table 4

Land Ownership Within the Agricultural Land

Table 5 Table 6

Management Areas ...............................................

Percentage Owner/Tenant Farmed ..................................

Unloads of Locally Grown Produce ..................................

2.3 2.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.4

CHARTS Chart 1 Chart 2 Chart 3

Summary of the Agricultural Land Management Program Activities ...............................................

Existing and Proposed Agricultural Conservation Policies for The General Municipal Plan .....................................

Agricultural Land Management Implementation Program ...............

5.1 5.3 5.5

MAPS Map Map Map Map Map Map Map Map

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (a) 7 (b)

Annexation Areas ................................................

Authorized and Approved Area Structure Plans .......................

Canada Land Inventory for Edmonton ...............................

Primary and Secondary Agricultural Land Management Areas ...........

Analysis Areas ...................................................

Market Gardeners ................................................

Northeast Annexation Area - Agricultural Land Uses ..................

Southwest Annexation Area - Agricultural Land Uses ..................

2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.4

°III

I

iii

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 areas1 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 o

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.

o

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.

o

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

1

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.

II iv o

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

o

Following annexation, taxes for some farmers have increased.

o

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

o

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.

o

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

o

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

o

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.

o

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

o

Annexation has had only infrastructure in Edmonton.

a

minimal

impact

on

the

agricultural

service

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): Fiseal 1.

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

2.

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

3.

THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF NOT LEVYING MARKET GARDENERS BE CONTINUED.

A BUSINESS TAX AGAINST

Land Use 4.

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

5.

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.

Iv V 6.

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. 8.

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

9.

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.

1.1 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 Management Program:

for the Agricultural Land

The City will prepare an Agricultural Land Management Program for the primary and secondary agricultural land management areas to, i)

promote higher production,

ii)

maintain an agricultural service infrastructure,

iii) iv)

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 nron-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 yopulation 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 Order 3 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,

b)

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

c)

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

d)

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.

2

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

3

Report and Decision Concerning Government of Alberta, June 1981.

the

Edmonton

percent of the on the part of the 75-25 split is a benchmark

Annexation

Application,

14-' --

~ ~ ~~ ~ ,,.............,.,

~

~

~

~~~.

......

.

MAP 1 ANNEXED AREAS AREAS ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF EDMONTON AS OF JANUARY 1, 1982 SFROM MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF STURGEON SFROM COUNTY OF STRATHCONA SFROM COUNTY OF PARKLAND SOURCE: CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT

U

FROM CITY OF ST. ALBERT

2.2

2.1.2

Urban Growth Strategy On 1981 07 07 City Council authorized the preparation of an Urban Growth Strategy 4 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:

2.1.3

(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 immediately prior to the preparation of an Area Structure Plan.

until

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

4

Urban Growth Strategy December, 1981.

Phase 1 Final Report,

City of Edmonton Planning,

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

-r

4,

-e

SOURCE: CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT

f

26

AUTHORIZED AREA STRUCTURE PLANS*

A B

BLACKMUD ELLERSLIE RESIDENTIAL

C D

LEWIS FARMS THE GRANGE

E F

TERWILLEGAR WINTERBURN

*CITY COUNCIL HAS AUTHORIZED THE PREPARATIOr OF AREA STRUCTURE PLANS FOR THESE AREAS.

4PROVINCIAL LAND HOLDINGS RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENTAREA

1 2 3

CASTLE DOWNS PLAN Approved - January, 1972

LAKE DISTRICT AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Approved • August, 1979

'CASSELMAN/STEELE HEIGHTS PLAN Approved - May, 1972

14

MILL WOODS PLAN

Approved -June, 1971

15

PILOT SOUND AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Approved -May, 1981

16

KENNEDALE AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - April. 1981

4

CLAREVIEW PLAN

17

TWIN BROOKS AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved- February,

5

HERMITAGE PLAN

18

YELLOWHEAD CORRIDOR AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - April. 1983

NORTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PLAN

19

THE MEADOWS AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

7

WEST JASPER PLACE PLAN Approved . May,

20

MISTATIM AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - July, 1983

8

WEST JASPER PLACE North Area Structure

21

CASTLE DOWNS NORTH AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved. November, 1983

9

WEST JASPER PLACE

22

Approved- August. 1972

Approved. May, 1970

6

Approved - May, 1974

1982

Approved

1972

Plan Approved -June. 1979

South Area Structure Plan Approved - September, 1979

10 11

23

SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL PLAN

24

Approved -March.

12

KASKITAYO PLAN

Approved

13

1975

-

October, 1973

SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PLAN Approved -January, 1974

October, 1982

PALISADES AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Approved - April. 1984

RIVERBEND AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - September.

1979

-

NORTHWEST EDMONTON AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Approved - April, 1984

EDMONTON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK

Approved - August. 1982

25

ELLERSLIE INDUSTRIAL AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Approved - September, 1984

26

AURUM INDUSTRIAL AREA STRUCTURE PLAN Approved - July, 1984

2.3 project in the area that at the time was immediately northeast of the City of 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.

Present Residential Land Supply for Development

2.2

This section provides a brief overview of the present land supply for residential Table 1 shows the number of potential dwelling units which could development. be built within both approved and authorized area structure plans. The figures show an excess of twenty years' supply of potential dwelling units. (It should be noted that such city wide figures do not allow for variances in demand and supply amongst particular areas of the City, various housing types, or various time periods. The noted data sources should be consulted for these details). However, the figures demonstrate no immediate need for Council to authorize further Area Structure Plans. 7 Agricultural Land Capability

2.3

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 Soils in classes 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered capable of into seven classes. 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 Land Management Areas, respectively). Approximately 80 percent of the primary and secondary areas are prime farmland, which corresponds to CLI 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

5

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

6

Data sources used to obtain these figures are the Status of Residential Land Report, 1985; Housing Market Report, 1985; and other residential status data available from the Corporate Forecasting Section.

7

The Planning and Building Department closely monitors residential land supply and housing absorption rates.

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

SMMMMMMMMM

I

Ilm

-

-

Table 1 City of Edmonton Residential Land Supply (in potential dwelling units) (Measured totend of December 31, 1985)

City

Vacant Serviced Subdivided

Vacant Subdivided

Raw Land in Approved ASP's

PDU in Authorized ASP's

Total Potential Units

(Not Serviced)

Sector SS

GRM

APT

TOTAL

SS

ORM

Nurtheast

394

2026

1041

3461

0

U

0

0

6920

2308

2297

11525

0

0

0

0

7314

4334

3338

14986

North

506

856

651

2013

77

44

U

121

16345

8044

7478

31867

0

0

0

0

16928

8944

8129

34001

Southeast

2164

2677

8202

13043

0

0

0

0

10422

3473

3473

17368

5677

1253

547

7477

18263

7403

12222

37888

Southwest

809

969

2373

4151

II

0

0

0

4906

1619

1619

8144

9910

885

3191

13986

15625

3473

7183

26281

West

583

757

2485

3825

19

0

0

19

1771

590

590

2951

21020

8959

8894

33873

23393

10306

6969

40668

4450

7285

14752

26493

96

44

0

40364

16034

15457

71855

36607

11097

7632

55336

81523

34460

37841

153824

APT TOTAl

SS

GRM

APT

TOTAL

SS

GRM

APT

TOTAL

SS

GRM

APT

TOTAL

TtaI 1985 LUnits

Source:

140

Corporate Forecasting Group Status of Residential Land Report, 1985 Housing Market Report, 1985 CMHC, 1985 *1986 Building Starts and Servicing are Estimates N.B.

SS: Single Family and Semi-detached GRM: Ground-Related Multiples APT: Apartments Assumes unit split of 60%; 20% GRM; 20% APT;

at conversion of 20 units per net hectare or 13 units per gross hectare.

2.4 (i.e., corresponding to Classes 1 and 2)8, 87 percent of the southwest 12 percent of the northwest area, and 54 percent of the southeast area.

2.4

area,

The Role of the Region and the Province Policies and actions of Regional Planning Commissions and the Province affect The following is a brief review of Edmonton agricultural land in Alberta.

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 from the section on 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 potentially be required to accommodate urban growth.

However, the Plan encourages urban municipalities to limit nonagricultural land uses on better agricultural land, unless:

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.

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 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

8

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

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

CL1 Class

Limitations For Crop Production

1

None

9190

(43%)

7500

2

Minor

9340

(87%)

-

230

3

Moderate

-

-

4

Servere

-

180

5/6

Hay/Pasture only

-

-

7

River Valley &

Northeast

470

(20%)

Southwest

990

(35%)

(5%)

(42%)

Northwest -

Southeast

Total for Each Class

Percent Total of All Classes

4780

(22%)

21470 (100%) 21470 (53%)

(2.5%)

1120

(10.5%)

10690 (100%) 10690 (26.5%)

630

(32%)

1340

(68%)

1970 (100%) 1970 (5%)

850

(22%)

2760

(73%)

3790 (100%)

220

(100%)

-

220 (100%) 880

(38%)

2340 (100%)

3970 (9%) 220 (.5%) 2340 (6%)

Ravine System TOTALS

Source:

19000

City of Edmonton Planning Department

8670

1930

10880

40480

40480

(100%)

"

-

--

... ..:_

__.

.. .

.

..:

i

,

..

I

]

.--

.

....

-

I

-.

.

... . ......

.

--

. 5.

: .

,.;A.-

.. .. ....

..

.,

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

.....

.....

31,..

I

I5

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

. .......

8 -'...

..........

4

1

...........

='"

: ' "~~.

.

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

;-.

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

..... ... "..... ..

:i

..... .. ..... . ..cember , .. 1..81. . .....

................ .. .. . .. ....... -o---_-o -e c t.e.

"! . . .-. ... ...... .... . ...............

used o.-'-:

o

= :

p.n ni

.. ... .,..

I.......

4........ ntrci

L

....

_-ei -eene ......

.-

...

A

C U .

. ...

•3-t.....

.

=.j

" - .- ..-..r ........

'- ..

EDMONTONm ..... ....... ......,.-.... .........-

~....;,...., -t -.._-. . .. :... ....... .. ..........t!. ... . .. .....

.-.-

X IX-

- ..

MAP-

..

-........ ....... ... ... :...... .. ....

, .i,.r ~ ~

~

.

~

~...- e~r~e .=- ..-_Area" :ei,7'rrven ~

01y B-ou r..

- -.. ..,ci..._a..-

~~~~~Ol

N& O,,y130:

MAP 3.

--.

CL1 Subclasstopograph

Cls

3.

-~i modrat

liiato

Suclss

cls

(hc

a

e

-

--

N

E T R Oeveme ' O ,l -SlfsttedArea .. :Ne

CL1 Subclass I- topography Not:"aea geeaiztos Subclass wrersn - wetnessC C l 1 -nogniicant e fo :..e ,ci.--.le .i cano i~rv. --r.._,,in.ey_ Subclass s - soil (often slaine in this area) Clas- lihtlimitation Class 3 - moderate limitation Subclass n - droughtness (sands) beINV/ENTORY Subclass* -class 1 soils (which my b Cas4 - agnlfr rbl mag i alpartiularly suited to market Cass

Class

."r

.-..;rc

AC UP3L A

, APRILbe 1981

FOR E

M

N

O

ALBERTA RESEARCH

degree of ''SOURCE: limitation

Note: areas represent broad generaiizations.CO

Ciy Bou"ery

N IA

IL1 8

-

1 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S ‘ 44 Ne h■ 4.1■1 mum I Nk

a lir10.11.• :

/

.1/ibt4 ,

".

N

11.

■ MMIMMiiimmultal J

/

1

Ipmgismillmily

ToMalripilit4a P wi.pIItLwuI mommositffr- ' /

.

1

1

11111 ,

d111111111 mod • zoinimi 1____ molisis As 4.\ Amilian _151 _ , IFIRI11 \.... ■4 r.

4 \ \ \ 0 Rilk*,,11.

I

\It &

W74 %,

41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 1 1 1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PRIMARY LAND MANAGEMENT SECONDARY LAND MANAGEMENT

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

2.5 urban growth, Edmonton is not affected by the Alberta Planning Board's policies on (Refer to Appendix 2 for the Alberta the conservation of agricultural land.

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 incorporated into the General Municipal Plan (GMP) on 1982 11 23:

were

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.2The City will minimize premature and unnecessary fragmentation of agricultural land through appropriate regulations in the Land Use Bylaw for the "AG" Land Agricultural District, and an Agricultural 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.4The 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 To follow Council's direction, the land is required for urban development.

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 However, the staging program has revised this. prior to the primary areas.

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 These taxation changes deal with Program recommends taxation changes. 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 report 9 . 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 E11erslie 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.

9

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.

3.

Miscellaneous circumstances.

this

deals

with

applicants

claiming

highly

unusual

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) 1 0 . 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: S -

10

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.

AGU

AG

AGI

1.

extended medical treatment services

extended medical treatment services*

2.

religious assembly

religious assembly*

3.

public education services

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

4.

private education

private education

services

services*

5.

public parks

public parks

public parks

6.

natural resource development

natural resource development

natural resource development

7.

community recreation services

community recreation services*

8.

protective and emergency services

protective and emergency services*

9.

minor impact utility services

minor impact utility services

10.

small animal breeding and boarding establishments

small animal breeding and boarding establishments

small animal breeding and boarding establishments

11.

greenhouses and plant nurseries

greenhouses and plant nurseries

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 Parkland, 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 and 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 review process. In sum, the ongoing use of the annexed Land Use Bylaws, specifically their AG Districts, will not jeopardize the continued viability of agricultural lands.11 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).

11

Further information on the Land Use Bylaws of Annexed Jurisdictions 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. 12 4.2 Landowner/Tenant \Study As part of the overall study a survey of farm operations 13 (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 Areas 14 that were used as part of the farmers field survey),I 5 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.

12

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.

13

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

14

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.

15

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.

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

I

..... ..

.....

__

.......

..-

.

-

- - -1-

.---

...

i,~~

I~

I

.... .....

....

,

.....

I

-lA

___

__

__

_

......... ,. ............ ..........

,

.. ....-.. ..

..... ... ...

........... ... .... ........ ......-....... ..... .....

.. .... ... ... .. ... ,....

.~~~ _--

, ._ _

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

7.,;,,

171

.. x

17

.=

...... .. ...

-

- ...... I ......

........

, 1961

.DECEMBER.

I

l

-- i

13.

-ne ....

*

":

.......

"" '1' "

.....

CaySouldary

New City City Eloundary Se tdary

MAP MAP 5

ANALYSIS AREAS

I I

ANALYSIS AREAS 'ANALYSIS AREAS WERE USED AS 'ANALYSIS AREAS WERE USED AS PART OF THE FARMERS FIELD SURVEY

PART OF THE FARMERS FIELD SURVEY SOURCE' URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY SOURCE URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY PHASE IREPORT PHASE CITY OFIREPORT EDMONTON CITY OF EDMONTON 1981 DECEMBER.

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 Information gathered from the City's agricultural land management areas.

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 explanation is provided in the consultant's reports):

summarized

below

(further

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 companies are farm companies; while 23% are land development companies 6 .

-

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 -

16

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

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.

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%

6

73

% 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%

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

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP Number of Acres Percent

COMPANY 1 OWNERSHIP

21,247.21 47.90

GOVERNMENT 2 OWNERSHIP

CITY 3 OWNERSHIP

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

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

4396 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

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, annexation they were not taxed by the rural municipalities.

while prior to

-

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 gardens 1 7 . 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 8 management areas is $12,000 per acre. 1

Farm Practices -

the average farm operation is 239 acres (this does not include land that is

farmed outside of the City boundaries). within the City comprises 1,174 acres.

The largest farming operation

-

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).

17

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.

18

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.

. ...

.........

....

.

..

-

I- .

----

------

N

-

.. . --.-

2I' Ai

-

... ... . ....

-

I;

<

WITHIN ~~

~

~

GAHR 3. WALL............

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

..

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

,,,,.....

A, IN. ' V . K..

BERRY .AND FARM

I1.

I

...

~

~

C ST. ALBERT GREENHOUSES.

MoYLMTSOTIECIYLMT

T I ,' R N.OO , 5.

A EASTPARK GREENHOUSES LTD. B HOLE'S GREENHOUSES AND GARDENS

MARRDENERSEN

D SUNNYSIDE FRUIT AND VEGETABLES 4.

KING'S VEGERABLE SCUARE 2. BSIMONS VEGETABLE FARMBHOESGENOESADARNSDM 6.-KULMANN'S 4.

KAIN RS VEGET IY

.E

AND BERRY FARM

VRIENDS ORGANIC VEGETABLES

AEDBLSDESOUUIRANDVEGETBLESMARK

7.'PAT MCMANUS 8. SIMON'S VEGETABLE FARM 9.ZAYCHUK NURSERY. VEGETABLE

......

1 ..............

pm"....

.

--R V--ET A--. ....

NY ..........................

S O 0- I ...... ...... ...............

BIRCHLAND BERRY FARM S FARM ,.MATGAN' 2.BRENNEIS VEGETABLE 5.

KOZUB MARKET GARDEN

i

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

y N ED MO NTOJ

MA

ET N

ERS GARD T AnC.T 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:

•

MI =I

INN

• OM

I=

MO

M

=MEM

ENNEN

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

Product

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sep.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

364

452

701

568

323

12

261

464

481

436

Artichokes Asparagus Beans Broccoli Brussel Sprouts Cabbage

43

Carrots

717

86

26

Cauliflower

-

Celery Corn

148

276

4

62

148

220

208

101

169

131

107

87

66

79

70

97

80

67

78

64

80

90

83

83

22

28

1

18

31

21

20

3311

3036

2542

3184

2296

3435

2119

2922

1

7

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

=I

I

. ..

U~~ i~A

"l'%.

"" " ..""'................. .^ . .:::-. . . ... ...

"

..

I""I................. :' :: i ...... ,,~" :. ~~~~~~~A . .. . . .. . . .::. . . . ....... ..... . .

. . . . . . .

....... ,,e AAA. . ,. *.. . .

I:''':::

. . . . ..

.

.:.•

-,1.'.~ : .... ~~

....

':'2-:':"~ ~

...

~~~

.. .

.•". . " .•

o

. .- "..

..

.o .0

" . . " •"

.'' .''.. .

....

1 ..

.. .... ..

,...,

,....-.

_

'

_°°°°°°°°o

.

:I:

...

.... . .

..

. .

..

...

.

....

.• ". . . .'"''. ...... ~ ~ ~. . . .. ::''

~

• .. .-.... ...

. .. o ..

Ii .. '.

. ...... ~~ .

E........

.

- .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . '

-N

....... ... .

.

. . . .

o .o o o . .° .o .o

. . . . . . . ....

NOT.E.S.

.. ....

f :. : :. .. - .. . .. ...

....

.''...''..

......

... . ................ . G .... . ...

. .

^.. .. .

.

.

MRKET. GD/T

-

. . .-.

AA'AA

F

..,

i

,, .......... ..... .....................

A• ....

AA A

AA AA^A..~l ~

......

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

REST.....RICTED.DEVELOPMENT

0•.,,....,:...:,. ,:

MA

.......

A--AAREA ESTRICTEDA

AEEOMN

ARE

AORE ...

CIT OF EDONO ANIN

.DE..RT...ENT

... .. .. .......EY . . . .EL

.

SUMR 1982% .

.

..

.

R

1

,,^,,,,,,,,,^,,,...,..

URSRYSORHEASTAOFNEDMONTO TEE

PLANNING DEPARTMEN

▪

••••: er e

••••-• •:r• •7•"• - • ' • '•-!.' • ';'•••••••!..• • • • • •• • 0 • • •• • • • 0- • • • • •

••••••••••••••••• • • • • - • • • • a.• . . . • • • • • aA•••••••• •• • • • 0.••••••• ••.• ■■••••.-• t"- irZ •"-..•;*-;"•"":.s.-'-..':` •• • •••■••• •.. ■••• • • • • . . e . • • w . . • • • • . . • .

• •• • • • • • • • •• • •• • • • • •••••• •••• ....W .... •:••••••:: • •• • • • • • • • • !.. o . .. • ...'.'• . .. • •••••.• •• • . '.'.'..

• • • . • ••• • • • •

•• • • •• • • • • •• 0.

•• ••IV••• ••■ •• • •• O.• D. • •••••O. ••••• • • •• • •• •• ••••• ••• • -

. • . "..1:• : • ..• ••••••:• • • •X) lim -r—•— • "txX .. • • • .. • •

-.6....--s

•. • .•

\•: . ••••”1•• ••0 •'. 4•. a ' Il • • • • • • k.XA

• • ...,.......XX:

. • ..• . .

.• • 040* . •.• .• ••. .•••• •• • • • •••••••• • ••• • ••••

•

=WM AAAAAAA

■

TREE NURSERY GRAIN/HAY LIVESTOCK

\\\\W ••••••••••

HORSES/PRIVATE RECREATION RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

MAP 7(b) SOUTHWEST ANNEXATION AREA AGRICULTURAL LAND USES

RESOURCE EXTRACTION OTHER USES RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREA

SOURCE CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT FIELD SURVEY SUMMER. 1982

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.

NORTHWEST -

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 In addition to these advisory and education services, the publications.

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 For example, weed control is offered by the Edmonton Departments.

Transportation Department, tree cutting is provided by the Parks and

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 1 9 .

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)

opportunity cost of unrealized land value, farmer's age, size of farm,

(iv)

condition of equipment and buildings,

(v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

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, 2 0 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.

19

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

20

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 -

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.

4.4

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 identifies the attendant Implementation Program.

5.1

Program and Section 5.2

Agricultural Land Management Program There are thirteen measures that the City can implement agricultural production until the land is needed for urban would not have significant adverse financial affects on the comprise the Agricultural Land Management Program (refer

to promote continued development and that City. These measures to Chart 1).

Fiscal 1.

EXEMPTING FARM BUILDINGS FROM ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS (UNTIL 2001).

BEING

TAXED

FOR

AN

Prior to annexation, farm buildings within adjoining rural municipalities were not taxed. Provincial Government assessment procedures requires the However, the Province exempted farm City to assess farm buildings. 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:

2.

normal

long-term-planning

period

for

farm

(a)

10-15 years is a 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.

MMMMl

MMMMMM -

mm

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

RATIONALE

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.

2.

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.

3.

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

-

5.

Land Use and Phasing Sequence

-

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

RATIONALE

CROSS REFERENCE

on

-

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.

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.

8.

Municipal Planning Commission'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.

9.

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 Structure Plan 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

6.

Long-term Leases Crown-owned Land

City Regulations

Area Terms

Promotions 11.

Information Brochure

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

12.

Encouraging Markets

13.

Consumer Program

RATIONALE

CROSS REFERENCE

Farmers'

-

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

-

Section 4.3.

Awareness

-

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.

-

Recommendation 9 That there be provision for the establishment of "Soil Reclamation Districts" whereby two-thirds of the landowners within defined boundaries may determine the remedies necessary to arrest soil degradation and/or reclaim lands presently subject to degradation.

Within Soil Reclamation Districts, constant dollar or low-interest loan funding should be available to help carry out remedial measures, with repayment to be compatible with benefits derived.

Recommendation 10 That the Planning Act and Regulations be amended to provide for the implementation of rural replotting schemes.

Recommendation 11 This Panel supports the recommendation in the report on soil conservation by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, to the Senate of Canada, *reading: That the Canadian Wheat Board modify the quota system to extend (a) full quota entitlement, at the "bonused" level of seeded acreage, to those remnant farmlands considered of marginal value for agriculture; and (b) partial quota entitlement,

equivalent to current quota levels for summer fallow, to extensive tracts of unimproved pasture land which form integral parts of farm units (p.12).

Recommendation 12 The Panel believes that the method of calculating coverage and payouts should be neutral as between planting on summer fallow or stubble. Since there are many technical details and complications in achieving this objective, the Panel calls on the Canada-Alberta Crop Insurance Corporation to give this matter their urgent consideration.

Recommendation 13 An agricultural development permit, issued by the Agricultural Service Board, should be required to clear or break land. Permits could identify special conditions under which clearing or breaking should take place.

Recommendation 14 That the rural municipality be given the responsibility for reclamation not dealt with under the Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act's regulated surface disturbances provisions. This proposal is not intended to replace direct negotiation between the applicant and the landowner for right of entry.

Recommendation 15 That the Government of Alberta work toward the removal of all inter-governmental barriers to free trade in beef, whether at the feeder cattle or finished stage. Particular attention should be paid to indirect barriers, including excessive levels of subsidy to develop beef cattle industries.

If, after fully canvassing the potential for free trade in beef at the provincial, national and international level, the conclusion on potential expansion is negative, the Government

of Alberta should institute special beef marketing programs. These might include special transportation assistance to market beef in new market areas, additional research on new forms of beef products, packaging, processing, transportation, and storage and continuing follow-up and reassessment of existing programs and initiatives.

Recommendation 16 Ex-port marketing of grass and forage products should involve product-oriented task groups representing each element in the chain from producer to consumer.

Recommendation 17 That research be carried out to provide more information on the maintenance of the amendments to Alberta agricultural soils.

Recommendation 18 That a research fund be established to study soil reclamation and effects of industry on agriculture. This fund could be developed by contributions from industry, matched by government.

Recommendation 19 Research should be carried out on an onqoing basis to study the long-term effects of agricultural chemicals on soils.

Recommendation 20 More funding for production research should be provided, and there should be a closer Producers should be liaison between provincial and federal research institutions. of production. sales on levy a through funding encouraged to contribute to research Recommendation 21 More research into grass and forage production is required, particularly into methods of increasing yields per acre.

Recommendation 22 That Agricultural Service Boards be encouraged to act as a practical research liaison within their jurisdiction in determining local research needs and in planning and managing projects.

Recommendation 23 That a research project be instituted to identify the full range of benefits and costs of various government incentive and subsidy proqrams on the sectors of the agricultural economy that they were intended to assist, as well as on other parts of agriculture and the larger economy.

Recommendation 24 Provincial programs of expansion and intensification should be assessed and priorized on the basis of the following guidelines.

Recommendation -25 That northern agricultural land base expansion be limited to the fringes of existing agricultural settlements until more is known about potential expansion areas.

Recommendation 26 A Range Management Agreement should have a 20-year term renewable in the tenth year.

Any increment of grazing capacity that was due to good management by the leasee, or range improvements carried out at the leasee's cost, should accrue to the leasee, even if this were to exceed the existing 600 animal unit limitation on size.

Recommendation 27 Grazing reserve expansion should be restricted to those cases where a grazing association The indicates its willingness to undertake all costs of maintenance and operation. to over turned be should reserves existing of operation and responsibility for maintenance as possible. quickly as associations grazing local Recommendation 28 That all land and buildings used for primary food production that are annexed to an urban

municipality be treated for assessment purposes as though they had remained in the rural

municipal jurisdiction, accompanied by municipal service levels similar to those of the rural municipality, until these lands are converted to a use other than agriculture.

Recommendation 29 That greenhouse buildings and land be assessed as agricultural for municipal tax purposes.

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 PROGRAM.

TO

THE

CITY'S

APPROVED

RESIDENTIAL

STAGING

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.

5.

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 AREA IN APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED ARE NOT INCLUDED 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 For example, a farm operator with impact certain farming operations. 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.

6.

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 However, other allows them to practice good agricultural husbandry. 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.

AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ON INCORPORATING REVISED 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 Conservation component should be revised.

Program,

the

Agricultural

Chart 2 shows the existing and proposed Agricultural Conservation objectives and policies. These GMP Amendments will be forwarded to Council in early 1986.

8.

CONTINUING TO FOLLOW THE AGRICULTURAL GUIDELINES THAT BY THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED 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.

9.

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

PROPOSED

EXISTING

14.A

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

EXPLANATION:

(ii) (iii) (iv)

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 land secondary and primary management areas shown in Map 14.1 to, (i)

14.A

promote higher production,

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

production,

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

promote continued agriculture

(ii) (iii) (iv)

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

This wording reflects that the City's Agricultural Land Management Program EXPLANATION: and that market gardens exist (or have the potential to exist) in most prepared has been rural areas in Edmonton.

14.A.2 The City will minimize premature and of fragmentation unnecessary agricultural land through appropriate regulations in the Land Use Bylaw for the "AG" Agriculture District, and an Management Land Agricultural Program.

14.A.2 The City will minimize premature and of fragmentation unnecessary appropriate through land agricultural regulations in the Land Use Bylaw for the "AG" Agricultural District, and the Agricultural Land Management Program.

This wording reflects that the Agricultural Land Management Program has EXPLANATION: been prepared.

PROPOSED

EXISTING

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

EXPLANATION:

14.A.3 The City will consider the potential and production, agricultural for of farming viability economic 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.

current review will City 14.A.4 The assessment and taxation policies to

14.A.4 The City will periodically review taxation policies assessment and

are

related to agriculture to determine if

for objectives with consistent Agricultural Land Management in the General Municipal Plan.

these policies are consistent with objectives for the Agricultural Land Management Program and the General Municipal Plan.

determine

if

these

policies

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 An concerned about how their farming operations may be affected. 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 If it is plans to develop a farmer's market in Northeast Edmonton. and would be compatible determined that another market in the northeast Farmers' Market, the City to the City's proposed Downtown complementary should encourage Provincial efforts in this regard.

13.

THE COMMUNITY (ESPECIALLY THE FARM ENCOURAGING A CONSUMER PRODUCERS) TO ESTABLISH HORTICULTURAL 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 Activities

i

Task Invoolved

Major Coordinating Responsibility

Secondary Input

Timing

Mandays

Costs

Fiscal 1. Farm Building Exemption

-

prepare a list of affected properties

Assessment

Planning

-

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

Planning

Assessment

2.

Farmland Assessment

-

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

Assessment

On-going

3.

Business Taxes Re: Market Gardens

-

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

Assessment

On-going

-

this is presently a task of the Planning Department

Planning

Updated on a yearly basis

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

Planning

January, 1986

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

Planning

January, 1986

-

$56,000.00 per year in waived taxes

-

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

-

minimal

-

minimal

Land Use 4.

Staging Residential Development

5.

Land Use and Phasing Sequence

6.

Long-Term Leases on Crownowned Land

-

20

CHART3 AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Activities

i

Task Invoolved

Major Coordinating Responsibility

Secondary Input

Timing

Costs

Mandays

City Regulations January, 1986

7.

General Municipal Plan Update

-

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

-

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

Planning

1986

-

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

Planning

1986

I 0. Revise the Area Structure

Plan Terms of Reference

Planning

-

minimal

-

none

3

-

minimal

15

-

minimal

10

On-going

Promotions

I 1. Information Brochure

12. Construct a New Downtown Farmers' Market

-

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

13. Horticultural Producers Organization

-

help to organize a consumer awareness program

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

PRIDE Task Force

Planning

Planning

Business Development

1986

8

minimal

APPENDICES

1.

Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Plan, Agriculture Section

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Alberta Planning Board's Policies for Conserving Agricultural Land City of Edmonton Position Paper Regarding the Environment Council of Alberta's Report and Recommendations Pertaining to the Maintenance and Expansion of the Agricultural Land Base in Alberta A Comparison of Agricultural Districts Landowner Survey Farm Survey Maps

7.

A Profile of Typical Economic Farming Units

8.

Options for Conserving Farm Land

APPENDIX 1 Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Plan Agriculture Section 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)

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVE TO AGRICULTURAL USE.

(3)

THE TO DISCOURAGE AGRICULTURAL LAND.

(4)

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

LAND

UNWARRANTED

FOR

CONTINUED

FRAGMENTATION

OF

AGRICULTURAL

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 Further subdivision of unworkable for agricultural purposes. 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 the the the

regional plan; general municipal plan; land use bylaw; and 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. four which are particularly important to agricultural conservation:

There are

1.

to provide guidance on the contents of regional plans;

2.

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;

3.

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

4.

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;

2.

Framework for Application of Regional Plan Guidelines; and

3.

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 They also ensure that Provincial policies on the conservation of and development. agricultural land have an influence on local land use decisions.

Key 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 Country residential development is an on better agricultural lands. 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;

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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 minunicipal plans and land use bylaws.

APPENDIX 3

CITY OF EDMONTON POSITION PAPER REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL OF ALBERTA'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE MAINTENANCE AND EXPANSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BASE IN ALBERTA

CITY OF EDMONTON POSITION PAPER REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL OF ALBERTA'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE MAINTENANCE AND EXPANSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BASE IN ALBERTA INTRODUCTION: The City of Edmonton was pleased to have participated in the Environment Council of Alberta's (ECA) public hearings on maintaining and expanding the Province's agricultural land base. At that time (November, 1983) the City presented a position paper which put forward eight (8) recommendations (See Enclosure 1(a)) outlining initiatives which could be undertaken by the Provincial Government to conserve and enhance the productivity of the Province's agricultural land base.

Subsequent to the Public Hearings, (December, 1984) the ECA published a report which presents the summary findings and recommendations of the Agricultural Panel of the ECA. These recommendations are summarized in Enclosure 1(b).

The purpose of this report is to record the City of Edmonton's position regarding the ECA's report and recommendations.

AN URBAN PERSPECTIVE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT With the continued depletion of non-renewable fossil fuel reserves, the agricultural and forestry industries will form an increasingly important component of the Province's

economic base. Given the importance of agri-business to national, provincial and local economies, the Provincial Government and ECA should be commended for their efforts in endeavouring to develop mechanisms that will ensure the long-term growth and prosperity generated by the agricultural sector through the preservation of that sector's primary input-- high quality agricultural soils.

At the outset, the City of Edmonton would wish to emphasize its continued commitment to the principles of maintaining, expanding, and enhancing the Province's agricultural land base. The City has demonstrated its common concern and commitment in this regard through: the incorporation of agricultural land policies within the General Municipal Plan; the preparation of an agricultural land management program for annexed lands; and active participation in the ECA's inquiry.

Notwithstanding the City's belief in, and support of, the principle advocating the preservation of the Province's agricultural land base, the City must view the matter of agricultural land management from an urban perspective. That perspective centres on the following assumptions: agricultural lands within the corporate limits of the ultimately be developed for urban use;

City

of Edmonton will

.

urban development represents the highest and best use for all incorporated lands; urban centres constitute the most efficient and economical opportunities to accommodate the Province's population and industrial growth; and, ultimately, urban development represents a legitimate use of all incorporated lands, irrespective of soil productivity considerations.

Within the context of these assumptions, the Civic Administration developed agricultural land policies which reflect a 'conservationist' approach to agricultural land management.

Specifically, the City's approach is one of encouraging and promoting the retention of high quality agricultural land for agricultural use until such time as the land is required for urban development.

Irrespective of the City's general support of the ECA's philosophy and approach at the provincial level, the City is concerned with the implications of a 'preservationist' approach to agricultural land management at the local level. The City is particularly concerned with those ECA recommendations which advocate the protection of agricultural land in perpetuity, as such an approach to agricultural land management may pose negative impacts on the orderly, efficient and economic expansion and operation of the City. Specific concerns in this reqard are outlined in the followinq sections.

Establishment of the Agricultural Resources Conservation Board: Recommendation I of the ECA's report proposes the establishment of an Agricultural Resources Conservation Board (ARCB), a special agency of the Crown charged with the responsibility for the conservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the Province's agricultural land base. The City of Edmonton has no concerns regarding the creation of such an authority at this time. However, in the absence of draft enabling legislation outlining the mandate, powers and responsibilities of the proposed Board, the City reserves the right to comment on this matter at the time that draft enabling legislation is brought forward.

Notwithstanding the City's general support for the objectives of proposals for creating a special authority, it is noted that the proposed responsibilities of the ARCB may be accommodated by simply expanding the mandate of existing agencies such as Alberta Agriculture, the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation and regional planning commissions.

Agricultural Land Management - A Local Responsibility: Recommendation 2 of the ECA's report suggests that responsibility for the maintenance of the agricultural land base rests with the rural municipalities of Alberta. Although the City of Edmonton supports the principles of local autonomy and discretionary powers inferred in this recommendation, the City would note that there is a need to ensure accountability of rural municipalities in terms of achieving the Province's objective of maintaining the agricultural land base. Failure of rural municipalities to have their land use, subdivision and development approval authorities implement land use controls in a manner which reflects good stewardship of agricultural land must be challenged by the Provincial Government. In order to assess the effectiveness of rural municipalities in achieving province-wide objectives, the Provincial Government must continue to be actively involved in agricultural land management through monitoring the land use decisions of rural municipalities.

2

Compensation Payments for the Loss of Agricultural Land: Recommendation 5 of the ECA's report proposes that the owner of record at the time lands are transferred from agricultural use (assessment) to non-agricultural use (assessment) be required to contribute to the Agricultural Productivity Compensation Fund. Further, it is proposed that these funds would be used to support agricultural research and development programs or applied to the acquisition and betterment of agricultural lands.

Although the proposed compensation scheme may serve to discourage the premature and unnecessary removal of agricultural land within a rural setting, the City of Edmonton cannot support any action which would prejudice the legitimate transition of City lands from agricultural to urban uses. Further, the City cannot support any action which will result in increased urban development costs as these costs will ultimately be passed down to the individual consumer in the form of higher housing costs. Accordingly, the City of Edmonton is strongly opposed to the concept of compensation payments for the loss of agricultural land unless agricultural lands located within the boundaries of urban municipalities are specifically exempted from the proposed compensation scheme.

Accommodating Country Residential Uses: Recommendation 6 of the ECA's report suggests four guidelines for future country

residential development. These guidelines are intended to minimize the impact of country residential expansion on the agricultural land base.

Prior to commenting on the guidelines in detail, the City would offer some general observations regarding country residential development within the Edmonton Region.

First, it is noted that there are approximately 5,000 undeveloped country residential Statistics parcels within commuting distance (30 miles) of the City of Edmonton. provided by the Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission (EMRPC) suggest that an additional population growth of 15,400 people can be accommodated through the occupancy of these vacant parcels. Given the substantial supply of undeveloped country residential parcels, the City has long advocated a moratorium on country residential subdivision within the Edmonton Metropolitan Region. It is the City's view that the foreseeable future demand for country residential development within the EMRPC Region can be adequately accommodated through the absorption of existing vacant parcels. As such, the City is of the opinion that the ECA's recommended guidelines for the creation of additional country residential parcels are not appropriate for the Edmonton Region.

Nonetheless, the City would put forward the following comments regarding the ECA's recommended guidelines.

Guideline A: The first guideline put forward by the ECA, 'Guideline (a)', recommends that Section 20 of the Subdivision Regulation (Alberta Regulation 1978/79, as amended) be repealed. Unless otherwise permitted in a regional plan, that Section prohibits the subdivision of land for country residential use if the land is located within five miles of an urban centre having a population of 5,000 or more persons. In putting forward the recommendation, the ECA recognized the original intent of Section 20

3

which is to ensure the easy and orderly transition from rural uses to urban development "by maintaining land that is most likely required for urban expansion in parcels that are as large as possible".

It was the ECA's view that the provisions outlined in Section 20 are no longer required as relatively inexpensive preplanning (e.g., Joint General Municipal Plans) would result in the possibility for typical country residential lots to be resubdivided for urban residential development without complex replotting. As the City and adjacent municipalities have not participated in the preparation of joint plans, it is the City's view that the provisions of Section 20 must remain in effect to avoid the proliferation of country residential development in areas just beyond the City's corporate limits.

Guideline B: 'Guideline (b)' advocates that country residential uses should be encouraged as an interim use in those instances where urban municipalities have annexed extensive areas of farmland. The City of Edmonton is strongly opposed to any action which will encourage, even on an interim basis, the proliferation of country residential development within its boundary. There are three main reasons underlying the City's opposition to the ECA's recommended guideline in this regard. These are:

1.

Given the relatively high costs of providing municipal services to country residential development coupled with the relatively low taxation revenues, it is the City's view that the proliferation of country residential development is contrary to the economical and equitable provision of municipal services.

2.

Much of the undeveloped land within the City's boundary is overlain with better quality agricultural soils (CLI Class 1, 2 and 3). The fragmentation of these highly productive lands to accommodate country residential uses would be contrary to the City's policies regarding the conservation of better quality lands.

3.

The City cannot, in good planning conscience, support the proliferation of country residential parcels and the concomitant fragmented ownership pattern. It has been the City's experience that the preparation of urban development plans for areas characterized by the presence of small parcels under fragmented ownership is fraught with problems as it is difficult to achieve consensus among a large number of owners.

Guideline C: 'Guideline (c)' encourages the further subdivision of existing country residential parcels. The minimum lot size presently permitted under the City's Land Use Bylaw is one hectare. In the Agricultural District, however, the minimum site area is 32 hectares. Under the Guidelines for the Subdivision of Rural Lands Policy, the minimum site area for a "first parcel out of an unsubdivided quarter section" situation is 1.2 ha. For a small farm situation the minimum site area is 32 ha (except for specialized production). The only other provision is for highly unusual circumstances in which physical or geographical barriers exist. Under these circumstances the Municipal Planning Commission will consider subdivision based on individual merit.

I

4

The City, recognizing the value of agricultural land, adopted the above policies to prevent the unwarranted fragmentation of land prior to the adoption of urban development plans. Given the negative impacts of country residential development within an urban setting (see preceding section), the City is unwilling to modify existing policies in order to accommodate the further subdivision of existing country residential parcels.

Guideline D: 'Guideline (d)' outlines four preferential locations for additional country residential development. Three suggested locations include: i) existing parcels of less than 20 acres, ii) parcels adjacent to existing intrusions into the agricultural land base, and iii) the bottom 10% of the municipal assessor's farmland assessment role where development would not interfere with agriculture. Each of the foregoing are situations wherein the City would not be prepared to change present policies and abandon its objectives towards preventing the proliferation of isolated large lot residential development. The City's Guidelines for the Subdivision of Rural Lands Policy accommodate the fourth preferential location recommended by the ECA. Specifically, it is noted that the City's guidelines in this regard permit the subdivision of rural parcels that are isolated from active agriculture by physical features such as coulees, water bodies, etc.

Assessment for Agricultural Properties: Recommendation 28 of the ECA's report proposes that all annexed land and buildings used for primary food production be treated for assessment purposes as though the properties remained under the jurisdiction of a rural municipality. In principle this recommendation is consistent with the intent of the City's General Municipal Plan policies 14.A and 14.A.4 which state: 14.A

"It is the objective of Council to encourage continuous agricultural production on agricultural land until the land is required for urban development."

14.A.4

"It is therefore the policy of Council that the City will review current assessment and taxation policies to determine if these policies are consistent with the objectives for Agricultural Land Management in the General Municipal Plan."

In accordance with the farmland assessment procedures prescribed in the Municipal Taxation Act and in accordance with the agricultural land management objectives of the General Municipal Plan, the City does assess legitimate farming operations at the preferential farmland assessment level. In so doing, the City continues to encourage continuous agricultural production.

Although the City supports the intent of the ECA's recommendation in this regard, the present wording of the recommendation poses a concern. Specifically, the concern emerges as a result of an urban municipality annexing rural lands wherein the ceding rural municipality has not strictly applied the farm operation criteria in granting the agricultural use tax preference. When the receiving urban municipality endeavours to correctly apply the criteria established in the Municipal Taxation Act, the City Assessment Office is often considered unreasonable. This results in numerous assessment appeals. The present wording of the ECA's recommendation which advocates that

5

assessment procedures continue as though lands had remained in a rural jurisdiction would force an annexing urban jurisdiction to carry on the potentially poor assessment practices that may be accepted by some rural municipalities.

In summary, the City supports the intent of Recommendation 28; however, the City is of the opinion that in order to eliminate the transitional assessment problems discussed above, the wording of the recommendation should be amended as follows: That all land and buildings used for primary production annexed to an urban municipality continue to be assessed at the agricultural assessment rate in accordance with the criteria established under the Municipal Taxation Act. Assessment for Greenhouse Operations: Recommendation 29 of the ECA's report proposes that greenhouse buildings and lands be assessed as agricultural uses for municipal tax purposes. Although the City of Edmonton recognizes the importance of the greenhouse industry, the recommendation to exempt greenhouses as farm buildings will cause a number of practical problems because it is administratively difficult for local taxation offices to differentiate between types of businesses using greenhouses. For example, some greenhouse operations are simply retailers of plants and trees purchased for resale. Others include the sale of fertilizers, sprays, tools, lawn ornaments, etc. Some operate landscaping businesses in conjunction

with the greenhouse.

There are also cases where a land parcel may include a rented

residence, a greenhouse, a retail centre, recreational vehicle storage, and farmland. As such, assessment and tax equity would require the difficult classification of greenhouse operations.

Although the recommendation is consistent with the City of Edmonton Planning and Building Department's draft agricultural land management guidelines, the City is of the opinion that the Province should be requested to provide grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities in order to compensate for taxes lost through implementation of Recommendation 29.

CONCLUSIONS: concerns, the City of Edmonton cannot endorse the Due to the aforementioned recommendations of the ECA's Agricultural Panel in their entirety. However, it is noted that through the hearing process and through the publication and circulation of their summary report and recommendations, the ECA has identified and brought to public attention the need to actively pursue the development of mechanisms geared toward ensuring long-term agricultural productivity within the Province. The City of Edmonton submits that the ECA's report provides a sound basis for the development of action programs required to address the problems of declining agricultural productivity and a continuing decline in the Province's agricultural land base. However, the City is of the view that the initiation of numerous changes to the existing statutory framework based solely on the recommendations put forward by the ECA would be premature due to the fact that many issues and potential conflicts of interest remain unresolved. Accordingly, the City of Edmonton would recommend that the Provincial Government proceed in this matter by initially assessing the merits of the ECA's recommendations in light of the commentaries forwarded by various municipalities, government agencies, and other corporate and private interest groups and individuals. The Provincial Government would then be in a position to prepare revised policy initiatives which would take into account

6

the ECA's preliminary recommendations and the comments provided by affected interest groups. It is the City's view that such action will ensure that the Province will progress, in a rational fashion, toward the development of appropriate programs and administrative procedures which will ensure the improved productivity and preservation of the Province's vital agricultural land base without unduly prejudicing other legitimate competing land uses.

7

ENCLOSURE I(a)

- SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS -

CITY OF EDMONTON SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL OF ALBERTA'S HEARINGS ON THE EXPANDING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BASEIN ALBERTA NOVEMBER, 1983

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, F POORER QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND IS AVAILABLE. In 1982, the Province awarded 59,520 acres of CLI 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 THE WITHIN FARMLAND PRIME ON PRODUCTION AGRICULTURAL IF THIS LAND IS NOT NEEDED TO MUNICIPALITY'S JURISDICTION, 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 AND THE LAND INVENTORY ALBERTA, BASED ON THE CANADA This would assist municipalities in AGRO-CLIMATIC RESOURCE INDEX. 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).

ENCLOSURE I(b)

- SUMMARY OF ECA RECOMMENDATIONS EXPANDING AND MAINTAINING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BASE IN ALBERTA

SUMMARY OF ECA RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 That an Agricultural Resources Conservation Board be established, reporting to the Minister of Agriculture and charged with responsibility on behalf of the Government of Alberta for the conservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the agricultural land base.

Recommendation 2 That the responsibility for the maintenance of the agricultural land base rest with the rural municipalities of Alberta. The responsibility to protect the agricultural land base should be accompanied by the power and authority necessary to achieve this objective.

Recommendation 3 In the identification of the appropriate growth options for major roads, utilities, and the expansion through annexation of residential, commercial, and industrial developments, the reqional planning commissions should develop benefit/cost analyses of the alternatives that consider not only the cost to the urban centres but the costs to the economy as a whole of the various alternatives for development.

Recommendation 4 That the location of feedlots and intensive agricultural operations be a matter of municipal control under land use bylaws.

Recommendation 5 The agricultural production lost when land is removed from agriculture should be replaced either by support of agricultural research and development or by practices and programs which would permanently replace the lost production.

Recommendation 6 Future additional country residential lots can be accommodated with a minimal impact on the agricultural land base, if the suggested guidelines are followed.

Recommendation 7 Municipalities should be urged to collect information on the cost of providing services to various types of uses in different areas of the municipality relating to different levels of existing and proposed infrastructure.

Recommendation 8 That an agricultural land use classification be developed that identifies the ability of the soil to be continuously utilized for different types of aqriculture without major degradation.

APPENDIX 4 A COMPARISON OF AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS STURGEON

STRATHCONA

PARKLAND

EDMONTON

PERMITTED USES

1.)

Farms*

*mneans 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.

S-

I

I

I

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)

6.)

7.)

8.)

9.)

I II

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

I I

1.)

2.)

3.)

II

One family Dwellings Intensive Agricultural operations Accessory buildings and uses

,m II I m

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.

IIII --m II

EDMONTON

PARKLAND

STRATHCONA

STURGEON

DISCRETIONARY USES

1.)

Extended Medical Treatment Services 2.) Religious Assembly 3.) Public Education Services 4.) Private Education Services 5.) Public Parks 6.) Natural Resource Development 7.)

Community Recreation Services 8.)

Protective and Emergency Services 9.)

Minor Impact Utility Services 10.) Small Animal Breeding & Boarding Establishments 11.) Greenhouses and Plant Nurseries

- I-i----iI -

--

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)

6.)

7.)

8.)

9.)

10.)

11.)

12.)

13.)

14.)

15.)

16.)

17.)

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.

l-

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

m

iI

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.

EDMONTON

PARKLAND

STRATHCONA

STURGEON

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% oflot width or 6m (20 ft) which ever is less

-l

l-

I-l-- II

I

-

Im- llII

l

APPENDIX 5 LANDOWNER SURVEY

Date Interviewer A. Central 1. Legal Description

Analysis Area

'Parcel No.

OCompany Lindividual(s)

2. Registered Owner

[Institutional (Gov't or Utility)

C:)Registered Owner OShareholder

3. Person Interviewed

ElTenant or lessee Elquitsble Amer

address

Telephone No.

El Tenant or lessee

name

Telephone No.

add revs

4. Who farms the property?

a

y owner only

O by l essee

a

only

ombination of owner and lessee

S. To be filled out if owner leases out part or all of the land. a) Type of Lease

- OCash; (21Crop Share; ElOther; C=INo Leases

b)

- alerbal; ElWritten

c) Length of Leese -

[DI

yr. or less; 1-31 - 2 yrv.; 123 yrs. or more

Comments (Cash rent per acre, purtion of fertilizer Cr chemicals paid, etc.):

6. a) Are there bzildinge on the property? Cies ElNo Proceed only if yes. b) Residence Only: Occupied by Downer; CDtenant who farms land;

Ci enant only; Ovacant; Downer - 1 -

and tenant

c) Are the. service buildings being used?

Non-Agricultural; d) If the

Used; 0No Service Buildings

buildings (house) is occupied by the owner, is this his principle

retidence?

7.

OBoth; ONot

OAgricultural;

- Yes

ONo

Pertains only if person interviewed is not farming.

Do you own any other farmland located inside the recently annexed area?

O Yes1ONo If yes, proceed.

Legal

If no, go to 18.

Farmed by Yourself

Leased

Area

Parcel No.

It leased, to whom:

8. Is the property presently under option?

If yes, comvn.

ODYes

"No

as to the length, future plan, etc.

(UflIti.: 11

9.

Ih t,.t.:

it,Agreement for suil

ol. the property?

-Yes

NoI

If yes, counment:

b. Property Ch;ardcteristics Crops

I.

Leral Type of Lease Total Acree Cult. Crown C.L.I. *

ldg.

a

a) Subject Parcel

b) Other Farm Parcel. owned Wilthin thu City

Chart cont nued on following page...

-2-

Legal Type

Crops f Lease Total Acres Cult. Crown C.L.I. Blds.

Parcels Leased WJItuhi

thie C:tLy

Parcels Farmed Outside the City Limits

-

_ . c) TOTAL

2.

'- -

Cive information on the above leases.

a) Type of Lease

-

Oash;

b)

-

OVerbal;

c)

Length of Lease -

.l

Ocrop Share; O

ther;

ODNo

eses

OWritten

yr. or less;

I

-

2 yr..;

03

yrs. or more

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

3.

4.

Pertains if buildings in (B1).

Legal

Type

F7111 I

either

Size

4

Approx. Age

Capacity

Remaining Econ. Life

Eat. Value

a or 4b.

a) 'ype of farm []Mixed -

[0].ee,;

OGracein;

ODairy;

]Hay; Other:

-3.

cHogs;

ElPoultry;

Horseo;

b) Specialized (only if 80% of.gross "sales are from this enterprise) Dairy;

OCrain;

*

If 6h

a

4:a

Eeef;

EDiogs;

EVegetable*;

OSod; OTree;

EPoultry;

Other:

vegetable or market garden farm, fill out the additional .

5. Cross sales from farm production.

0 - $ 4,.999 6

5,000 - $ 9,999

O

S 10,000 - 519,999 20,000 - $49,999

$ 50,000 - $99,999

O

510.00,000 + Over

M

C. Markecing, Ap Inputs and Extension 1. Where do you maJrket your farm products (802 or more)?

I

OWithin

2_

0utside

City Limits - Which sector of study area?

City Limits (Indicate where in the comments.)

ID Both Comments:

2. Where do you purchase your farm supplies (80% or more)?

2

Within City Limits - Which sector of study area?

_

0Outside

%

E

City Limits (Indicate where in the comments.)

Both

Comments:

3. a) Do you use the local District Agriculturist?

ENever;

EDoccasionally; E)Frequently

b) Do you ute

O Never;

the local field service people?

E[Occasionally;

OFrequently

c) Do you use other provincial agricultural people?

O

Never; Eloccasionally; E Frequently

-4-

information

d) Do you use the Private Company representation?

E)Never;

Uccasionally;

-Frequently

Comment as to the person's use or attendance government ur other individuals.

at seminars, etc. sponsored

by

Comments:

D.

Future Plans 1. Age of farmer (operator).

E

Under 30 31 - 40 4 1!- 50 Over 50

2.

Do you have any farm employees?

If yes:

EYes

ONo

Number of full-time Number of part-time

3.

a) Off farm employment

b)

No JFull-time

I

Annual Cross Income

0 -S 4,999 $

5,000 - $ 9,999

Part-time

$ 10,000 - $19,999

Other

S 20,000 - $49,999

0

$ 50,000.- $99,999

0 0

$100,000 + Over

M

Comments:

4.

Number of years farming in the present location?

5.

Do you consider this to be a family farm unit?

J Yes

ONo

Commen Ls:

- 5

I

If

how many members

yes,

of the family are

involved and

number of

genera-

clons?

h.

ta,.,th, y.u

7.

WJhat agricultural practices do you (or would you) perform differently In the iollowiig cicumstances?

-

tu as thieCity's role in the future of your farming practice?

laitd uwned

- lautd

leas ed

for three years or more

- Land leas~d for one year only -. None

0Some

If some, give comments.

Comments:

8.

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

9.

Do you think you will change your farming practices now that your farm or a portion of IC i located within the City of Edmontun (Types of crops, investment, far, uupplies. etc.)?

C Ye.

'~

CommenCts:

- 6 -

10*.

Have you considered relocating your farm outside

the City?

ONo

.'es

Comments:

11.

Have your property taxes increased as a result of annexation?

OEYes

D

No

Comments (as to how much, Z and in comparison to surrounding municipalities):

12.

Are you familiar with the recently approved City GCowch Strategy Plant

Ovs O:

13.

Wlat surrounding

E Nonc

land uses would adversely effect your farming operation?

-Samc

Comm7 n ts:

7

I I APPENDIX 6 FARM SURVEY MAPS

I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I

... ...

.... ......... .....-

. .... .I.....

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

-

..

.

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

.

-

..

.°..

.....

.

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

......

....

..

.v-v-.-.°v.'

ZX..-X-XX-.°'.-'X: 0..0v.v... :X::::v.v.:. :.'.. .. . ' X' -..x'

-

..... ...

=

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

..........

•

"°°.-°%........ °..°; ..

...........

..........

.

. ...

.. .

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

, °.......

...

"v ''..' -o... ...

...

.

" .°°.°°.

.

° .

- -,-

'. .' :

i

..

.... ..

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

....

., ...

_........

~ ~ . .... ~.. .... ..... .

.v V

... ...

.

"=--

..

:> ..

J.Vo

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

..... ,.

o

g=

...

....... °-°-...-

-I-..

----

---

,.~ ~~~ /-

.

-•~~~--

- -- -

........

1........

.....

-

- -

ii~

""-- d

~

~~~

.... v' .. ----------

-:-.''; ....

-----

-

.-- -.:- :"- : ----.-.-.-

--_ _--.

-"

-

-------

.-,.--"-=-=----

---..

-__

----- . . . ....

---I

..

- --> --

--

.. .

. . . . . ..-.---

'--

MAP 6a NORTHEAST FARM SURVEY AREA PRIMARY LAND MANAGEMENT

DELOITTE HASKINS ASSOCIATES SURVEY AREA CITY ASSESSMENT AREA LOCATION MAP SOURCE. DELOTTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES

ECONOMIC VIABILITY STUDY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL PHASEIREPORT MARCH. 1983

SURVEY AREA RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREA

I

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

- -----

" "--.---.-----.----

..

-......

.... - - - - --

_"

---

"

.......... . .... ."I

--------

--------------

..... ---

-"

-.I-~_-

--'- ' - -

- -"

--, -_-_-_-... ..- .:.:.:.-.:::...-.:-:---.. .;.------

-'

-

-,'.- - -.- - -'- - -

E..VT

------AE

....... .... "

.

...........-

*"'='

:..

°....., :......

;,,........ ,...... .. .,..... .

- .I ;.I

. - --

..--......-. ..

-. : :..:.D. ...

DEVELOPMENTAR.........E. °, ,.°,i,

.,. , ,.

..

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

-........... ...................

I .....

-7.

.... _....... = _ ___.,--v..*-. v.v-... .'-. .. '.:. .'.,:.....v.,.:..... ......... ..... ,.. '..:v ..

-----------------v~ ~~v'.

------------ --- -- l

--

, I, i

... . °"°° "

I= =

-

"°'"

'°' °'"° '°'...,,,..."." . .......

I....I = ''ll'l.~l.l.

......... ..

....... ....

I

-

.

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

SURVEY AREA

.........

-.----

....---

. .

_. . ...... ........ . ..

•. . ...........................

... LOCATION .....

MAP AREA

..

-

..

..--.

---

P:EI ORT MA

C.

19.

_ --

* i

I

.

. ......

-

;,-.

STRICTED RE-

-

MAP 6b MAP 6b FARM SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST SURVEY AREAFARM SURVEY AREA PRIMARY LAND MANAGEMENT PRIMARY LAND MANAGEMENT

iiiiiiiiiiiiii ......::ili .O.Z l AND DELOITTE SELLSHASKINS ~

AND SELLS ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES

SURVEY AREA

AEA LOCATION MAP

[ SOURCE: SOURCE. DELoITT,,HSKINS DELOiTTE HASKINS AND AND SELLSsscs SELLS ASSOCIATES VIABILITY STUDY OFSREYAE STUDY OF AN ECONOMIC VIABILITY ANECONOMIC

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL L.AND LAND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT AREAS AREAS

'iiiI~I~lIl IIll~l~i[J

CITY ASSESSMENT SURVEYIAREA CIT ASSSSEN

V EY ARE

DEVELOPMENT AREA

I:I 7--

------ ."--- --

--- - - - -

--- --- - , - -- - -----

:I::Il"lt

:.:. :.

... . ..... i.j...... ,......

......

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

I

=___________

......

: -:j. . .

.,. .= " _. ...............

-_-

-- z-

...- - - -:

.--

-

__

-- 1

..

.

-__. . _-

--

...:......

---

- -- --

MAP 6c SOUTHEAST FARM SURVEY AREA SECONDARY LAND MANAGEMENT

DELOITTE HASKINS

[..

AND SELLS ASSOCIATES SURVEY AREA

ASSESSMENT CITY AREA SURVEY

AREA LOCATION MAP

______________SURVEY

SOURCE DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES

STUDY OF ECONOMIC VIABILITY AN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL LANDMANAGEMENT AREAS

PHASE REPORT MARCH. 1983

-

-

-

R S

...

____

AREA

7 ICTE IC

DEVELOPMENT AREA

--

I .... -- - , Id-', .----..

-

"I.--.

Ic

I

.

-',

-".

--.

9-,

,

.

;. '

.1

",,. - '

•

.

.,, ,

4:-..-

9.'

I

...

-.

"-........ ( ......

---------- ----

-

.

......

_---

-

.,? . ... - -

--

- -------

I_

-----------

I~

.. ..

-- ..

i

" ''

_--

..... =2 .. ....... .... j.

7-

00---

MAP 6d NORTHWEST FARM SURVEY AREA

I.SECONDARY

LAND MANAGEMENT

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES SURVEY AREA CITY ASSESSMENT

AREA LOCATION MAP

• IlISURVEY AREA SOURCE. DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS ASSOCIATES AN ECONOMIC VIABILITYSTUDY OF

U

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS

PHASE REPORT 1983 MARCH.

-

RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREA

APPENDIX 7 A Profile of Typical Economie 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, ie. 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.

II I.

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

0

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 - 800 acres, with 750 acres cultivated

SIZE

- 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 Gross Expenses

$ 87,500 $ 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 - 320 aeraes, with 300 acres cultivated

SIZE

- 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 Net Income

$ 68,200

(78%)

$ 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 - 160 acres, with 150 acres cultivated

SIZE

- 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 Net Income

$ 81,600 $ 15,400

(85%) (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

V.

BASIC ECONOMIC UNIT - POTATOES/GRAIN OPERATION - 640 acres, with 600 acres cultivated

SIZE

- 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

0

Equipment

$ 200,000

TOTAL

$1,330,000

EQUITY 65%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue Gross Expenses

$183,000

(85%)

Net Income

$ 32,000

(2.4% of total investment)

$215,000

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 - 80 acres, with 75 cultivated

SIZE

- 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

0

Equipment

$ 70,000

TOTAL

$340,000

EQUITY 65%

REVENUE/EXPENSES Gross Revenue Gross Expenses

$ 61,000 $ 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

1.

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 agricultural production within a specified time frame, then a penalty for breaking the agreement is imposed.

- a deferred property 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 non-farm developments (eg. residential 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 1983 assessment 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

2.b.

Transfer Development Rights

of

EVALUATION

IMPLICATIONS

DESCRIPTION

OPTION

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

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

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

associated issues Other of transfer the with rights development include: (1)

I

-

Im

-

-II-

-

-I-

-

-I-

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

-I-

-,

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND

OPTION

2.

Development Rights

2.a.

Public Purchase 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: of

- in the public purchase of development rights the government purchases from landowners the development rights to their lana.

For example, in 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 within the county, depending upon the value of the land for its highest and best use as opposed to its value for agricultural It is the purposes only. 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 -$800)= $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

3.

Agricultural Banking

4.

Land Use Controls

II

-

-I

DESCRIPTION

Land

-

-

IMPLICATIONS

-

this concept involves the creation of an agricultural land authority with the power to acquire fee simple interests in land by purchase, gift, or 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 land are: exclusive agricultural zoning and primary agricultural zoning:

-

u-

-

-

-

EVALUATION

similar to the public purchase of development rights, the monetary implications of even 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

-

n -I

Na

(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.

-

-

- Dl

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND

OPTION

DESCRIPTION

IMPLICATIONS

EVALUATION

4.a.

Exclusive Zoning

Agricultural

-

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

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

4.b.

Primary Zoning

Agricultural

-

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

-

IM

iImI -

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

-

-

--

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

-

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

m

-

APPENDIX 8 OPTIONS FOR CONSERVING FARMLAND DESCRIPTION

OPTION

5.

Agricultural Districts

, ' , :.

S-

m

m

m-

- agricultural districts are similar in their effect to exclusive agricultural 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.

m

m-

--

IMPLICATIONS

- through the Area Structure Plan process the City could prepare an agricultural area structure plan.

However, as ASPs can be amended at any time, farmers would need some form of assurance that non-farm development would not be allowed for a certain time frame.

m-

--.-

EVALUATION

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

m

m