Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends updated Farmland Preservation Plan to county board; DATCP preliminarily certifies draft
Summary
After a public hearing, staff highlighted methodology and stakeholder input behind the updated Farmland Preservation Plan and said the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection certified the draft text and requested larger‑scale town maps; committee voted to forward the plan to the county board with a recommendation and place it on the consent agenda.
Polk County planning staff presented an updated Farmland Preservation Plan during a public hearing on Oct. 1 and asked the Environmental Services Committee to forward the draft to the county board with a favorable recommendation so the county remains eligible for state farmland‑preservation programs.
Staff said the plan was developed over roughly a year with stakeholder meetings including town officials, agricultural producers, cooperatives and regional planning partners. "This plan is developed with the purpose of identifying and then developing tools to preserve the most vital agricultural lands in the County," staff told the committee, and noted the update is required every 10 years for certification that enables property‑tax credits for participating farmland owners.
The plan uses a three‑part land‑evaluation and site‑assessment approach: a soil‑based score, a site assessment that incorporates population density, and current agricultural land cover; each criterion was scored and combined into a 60‑point scale. Staff reported that stakeholders favored a more inclusive 21‑point map cutoff to identify potential preservation areas.
Staff also summarized a preliminary review by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). DATCP found the draft text certifiable but asked for larger‑scale town map PDFs to enable parcel‑level review; staff committed to provide a separate, high‑resolution map set to DATCP while retaining the printable town maps in the public packet.
After questions about town notification and municipal boundary implications, a committee member moved to forward the draft plan and a draft resolution to the county board with a favorable recommendation and to place the item on the consent agenda; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Staff said the current county plan expires in December and recommended timely county‑board action to maintain program eligibility.
The committee’s recommendation sends the draft plan and a draft resolution to the county board; formal adoption and any implementation commitments (for example, voluntary contracts or local zoning alignment) remain subject to the board’s review and any public hearing requirements.
