Study of Madison area shows land used for agriculture gets fewer advantages from government than other land

 

In Northeast Ohio, wine and grapes are part of an estimated $30 million annual revenue producer.
But such farmland use might not be getting all the attention it needs, according to the first updated report since a 1993 study of the Madison area by the American Farmland Trust, a private, nonprofit conservation organization.
The "Cost of Community Services" study says farmland use doesn't get quite the same advantage from government bodies as land used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes.
The COCS study stresses its main purpose "is to help a community determine the net fiscal contributions of various land uses, not to recommend one type of land use over another."
But the study does say its authors want to "highlight the often-overlooked fiscal contribution of farm and forest lands so these lands can be duly considered in the planning process."
"Agricultural lands consistently pay more in local tax revenues than they receive in services," the report states.
Madison Township Administrator Larry Advey said he thought the report's title, "Finding a Balance," is apt.
"I think that's where the answers are. Agriculture brings a lot of things to the community. 'Greenies' is now the buzzword, and that's why we need balance," Advey said.
"The second scenario shows the importance of the wine industry in our geographical area. There is a lot of economic impact, and we all need to work together on balancing what we do in land use."
In Madison Village, the report said, 74 percent of revenue in fiscal year 2006 was generated by residential land, 25.3 percent by commercial and industrial land, and 0.7 percent by farm and forest land.
The village used 91.2 percent of its revenue to provide services for residential land, 8.6 percent for commercial and industrial land, and just 0.3 percent on farms, nurseries and wineries.
For each $1 of revenue from residential property, Madison Village spent $1.16 for services to those lands. For each $1 from commercial and industrial land uses, it got 32 cents back.
"For each $1 received from farm and forest land, the village spent 37 cents," the "Finding a Balance" report states.
In Madison Township, residential land got back $1.24 in services, and commerce and industry got back 33 cents for each $1.
For each $1 from farms, landowners got back 30 cents.
"Residential development is the backbone of any community and pays a substantial portion of fiscal revenue," the study states. But it does not generate enough income for the services it requires.
"Planning for the growth of a community should include a mix of commercial and industrial as well as farm and forested lands to help achieve a fiscal balance."
Woodland property owners can use the Ohio Forest Tax Law for lower taxes. Farmers, nursery owners and vineyard owners can use Ohio's Current Agricultural Use Value law.
The CAUV program enables such land owners to have their parcels taxed according to their value in agriculture, rather than full market value.
Agricultural and vacant land still is the dominant land use in the Madison area. But its 16,878 such acres represent 3,183 fewer acres, or 16 percent less, since the 1993 study.
Residential acreage went from 2,722 acres up to 5,834 acres, an 87 percent increase, the study said.
But the COCS study said nurseries and small farms remain as major Madison area landmarks.
"Agricultural land uses remain strong, ranging from commercial nursery operations and garden centers to small fruit and vegetable producers and vineyards," the study said.
The authors of the study acknowledge that they are aware of "three common claims often heard at community meetings":
* Open lands - including working agricultural and forest land - are an interim land use that should be developed to their "highest and best use"; that is, residential subdivisions or convenience stores.
* Agricultural land gets an "unfair tax break" when it is assessed at its actual use value for agriculture instead of at its potential use value for development.
* Residential development will lower property taxes by increasing the tax base.
"While it's true that an acre with a new house generates more total revenue than an acre of farmland, this tells little about a community's fiscal balance," the authors wrote.
The study said the combined population of the township and village grew from 17,594 in 1990 to 24,418 in 2006, when residential land use increased by 87 percent.
"This is an indication that new housing consumed larger lots," the report said. "Because there is a fixed amount of land and a growing population, a key issue for land conservation is how efficiently the land is being developed."
The American Farmland Trust report added that a "mismatch" of land use and budgets could continue to reduce the asset of agriculture:
"Often the end result is that all available farm, forest and open land is consumed.
"This study shows that a balance of land uses that includes agricultural lands is able to provide revenue needed to pay the services required by residential land uses."