Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Farmington, New Hampshire

Farmington Master Plan

Farmington, New Hampshire

2005

Prepared by : The Zoning and Master Planning Subcommittee

With Assistance from: Jeffrey H. Taylor & Associates, Inc. Concord, New Hampshire

Applied Economic Research, Inc. Laconia, New Hampshire ______

Adopted by: Farmington Planning Board

ADOPTION OF FARMINGTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE MASTER PLAN

In accordance with New Hampshire RSA 674:4, Master Plan Adoption and Amendment, and New Hampshire RSA 675:6, Method of Adoption, the Farmington Planning Board, having held duly authorized public hearings on the Farmington Master Plan on _____ and _____ hereby adopts and certifies the Master Plan dated ______, 2008.

, Chairman , Vice Chairman

, Exofficio

, Alternate

, Farmington Town Clerk Date of Signature by Planning Board

Date Filed:

NOTE: The original document with original signatures is on file with the Town Clerk. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. VISION

2. LAND USE

3. NATURAL RESOURCES

4. DEMOGRAPHIC, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC TRENDS

5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES

7. RECREATION

8. TRANSPORTATION

9. IMPLEMENTATION

APPENDICES

Appendix

MAP PRODUCTS

1. Historic Land Use – 1962 2. Historic Land Use – 1974 3. Historic Land Use – 1998 4. Existing Land Use – 2004 5. Future Land Use 6. Roadway Classification 7. Traffic Counts 8. Constraints to Development MASTER PLAN OPINION SURVEY

Chapter 1 Vision

Chapter 1 Vision

1.0 The Recent Past 2.0 The Present 3.0 The Future – A Vision for 2020 4.0 Afterthought

1.0 THE RECENT PAST

Farmington is a community in transition. In fact, it has been in transition for some time. Although geographically on the fringe of the New Hampshire Seacoast Region, Farmington has been dramatically impacted by the surge in population in that area. As real estate prices have risen in the Seacoast and other parts of Rockingham County, many people have moved further inland seeking more moderately priced housing. This has brought many new individuals to Farmington.

In 1970 the US Census recorded a population of 3,588 people in Farmington. Today that figure is estimated by Applied Economic Research (AER) to be on the order of 6800, an 89% increase in slightly over thirty years. Growth in Farmington exceeded that in Strafford County in general, albeit only slightly, in each of the decades between 1970 and 2000.

Farmington’s growth has not been even, in terms of the economic characteristics of the new citizens. In 1990, Farmington’s median household income ($31,112) was 95% of the same figure for Strafford County. In 2000, the current figure ($40,971) was only 91% of the county median household income. It would appear that many of the new residents have been at the low and moderate end of the income scale.

Between 1990 and 2000, Farmington issued building permits for 213 new housing units. Of those permits, 46% of them were for mobile homes. This is the largest concentration of new mobile homes of any community in the area, except for the City of Rochester, which had 48% of its growth in mobile homes. On average, mobile homes represented only 18% of the new housing units in Barrington, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, and Strafford.

At the same time that Farmington has been receiving new residents who are living in lower value residential units, it has been losing employment, both in raw numbers of jobs and as a percentage of jobs in the region. Between 1993 and 2002 Farmington had a net loss of nearly 17 jobs for a current total of some 1600 and a loss of some 255 from its peak employment of 1855 positions in 1996. Its share of the regional job base declined as well, from 4.2% in 1993 to 3.7% in 2002. Rochester, by contrast, saw its percentage of regional jobs hold fairly steady, dropping only from 78% in 1991 to 77% at present.

These are important issues for Farmington. A larger population base in the community requires additional services. And yet, Farmington’s new taxable property is largely in lower value

Vision 1- 1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 residential units, not in the higher value commercial and industrial facilities that are used to house an expanding employment base. These circumstances set the stage for a series of questionnaires and visioning sessions undertaken by the Farmington Zoning and Master Plan Committee beginning in the autumn of 2003.

2.0 THE PRESENT

Despite its recent growth, Farmington retains its “small town” feel, and much of its rural character. People like that. They like knowing their neighbors. They like the way people volunteer and help each other out, both as individuals and through a variety of social and civic groups. They like the multi-generational nature of many of the activities here, and the variety of people, families, and income levels present in the community.

People like Farmington’s downtown, with its village character and layout. They like the village’s architecture. There is a concern about the low level of business activity here, however. There is a concern that this lack of economic vitality is leading to a lack of reinvestment and maintenance in both pubic and private properties. They cite both buildings and sidewalks that need repairs. There is a concern about enforcement of building and life safety codes in this area.

People are concerned about the lack of employment opportunities in Farmington in general. They are concerned about this both from the economic impact on individuals and families, and from the impact on the tax base. People are concerned about the degree that increased demands on services will generate increased tax bills for residential property owners. They do not wish to see Farmington become just a bedroom community.

People are concerned about the amount and the rate of population growth in Farmington. They are concerned about it changing the social dynamic of a small town. They are concerned about its impact on the natural environment and the rural landscape. They are concerned about the economic impact of the new population growth on existing residents, absent an expanding commercial and industrial tax base.

People are concerned about a variety of social issues. Some speak of a lack of activities Older residents speak of a hesitancy to walk downtown, not only because of a lack of sidewalks and the poor condition of some existing sidewalks, but also because of loitering there by younger people. Some express concern about substance abuse in the community.

Residents are concerned about education in a number of ways. People worry about the cost – as well as the quality - of public education. Many residents don’t understand how the school district is spending their money. Others are concerned that there are not enough opportunities for adult education despite Farmington’s low educational attainment (20% lower than the state average) and relatively high drop-out rate.

3.0 THE FUTURE - A VISION FOR 2020

And yet, despite all of their concerns, there are indications that people in Farmington are becoming more hopeful about the future. They have lots of ideas and suggestions, things that

Vision 1- 2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 they have seen work in other communities, things they would like to see either developed or brought back to Farmington. The Recent introduction of broadcasting of public meetings on public access cable seems to be facilitating a new sense of openness that is drawing even more people to become involved. People seem genuinely ready to work to bring some changes to bear, so as to preserve that small town atmosphere that either brought them here, or made them decide to stay here.

As Farmington has continued to grow, it has captured the energy of both current and new residents. It has developed teams and strategies to undertake a variety of activities that have helped it to retain its small town character and rural atmosphere, to expand its economic base, and to engage its citizens in a variety of social venues. People are especially hopeful that by 2020, Farmington will have benefited from the following actions:

Farmington has created a more vibrant downtown, by:

Examining alternative traffic patterns, parking configurations, building design standards and other strategies that would improve the function and appeal of downtown.

Creating a more people-friendly downtown with a community police presence.

Securing funds from outside sources with which to assist and stimulate further private investment in the area.

Farmington has created a stronger local economy, by:

Utilizing Route 11 as a center for industrial and commercial development while retaining it as an effective travel corridor.

Controlling municipal costs to help residents have more disposable income to spend locally.

Working cooperatively with state and regional economic development entities.

Creating an incubator program through which to train and assist local entrepreneurs in creating and growing existing Farmington businesses.

Pursuing creative, competitive strategies that offer new and expanding businesses features that other communities don’t offer, including grants and integrated transportation, recreation, and trail planning.

Farmington has actively worked to preserve the quality of life of residents, by:

Strengthening development regulations to both protect important natural features and to promote a higher quality of development.

Vision 1- 3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Pursuing a stronger program of building code enforcement.

Ensuring that new development contributes fairly towards the cost of the services it requires. Remaining on a par with surrounding communities with respect to the pace of development.

Implementing a comprehensive transportation plan that includes sidewalks, access management, and policies governing road maintenance and upgrades.

Residents interact with a town government that they feel is responsive and effective, because:

Municipal leaders encourage participation in meetings with town boards and committees by finding new ways to inform and engage residents.

The town has created and maintained policies that encourage openness and the contributions of residents.

The town has pursued strategies to control tax rates by increasing the assessed value of new construction and by other means.

Farmington has created more social and recreational opportunities for its citizens, by:

Tailoring the recreational program to serve junior high and high-school youth as well as the very young and seniors.

Establishing a community events area in which to host outdoor civic events, flea markets, auto shows, and fairs.

Establishing a program of quarterly public events, such as

Old Home Day Community Picnics Skating and Sledding Parties Band Concerts Bon Fires Parades

Creating and expanding a network of multi-use recreational trails, and parks linking the downtown center to a variety of in-town and out-of-town locations

4.0 AFTERTHOUGHT

A grand vision? Perhaps. Too grand for a community the size of Farmington? Absolutely not! It may be ambitious, but so be it. The point of a Vision is to be grand, to stretch ourselves, to see how all of the pieces fit together. So let’s get started!! If we only achieve 80% of the vision, we will still be better off than when we started!

Vision 1- 4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Chapter 2 Land Use

Downtown Farmington Chapter 2 Land Use

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Historic Land Use Patterns 3.0 Existing Land Use Patterns 3.1 Downtown 3.2 NH Route 11 Corridor 3.3 Rural Lands 4.0 Future Land Use

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Changes in demographics, evolving housing demand, and the economic and conservation needs discussed throughout this plan are all factors that have a direct influence on Farmington’s land use patterns. Land is a finite resource, and the thoughtful planning for present and future land use is an issue for all communities. Since 1987 Farmington has regulated land uses with a zoning ordinance which is based on the Farmington Master Plan. New Hampshire RSA 674:2 II (B) requires master plans to have a vision and a land use section at a minimum. This master plan also includes several of the suggested chapters that further support the vision and land use chapters. How a community decides to use its land base clearly has a direct impact on natural resources, on community character, on transportation infrastructure, and on housing affordability, the tax base, and the cost of providing services.

Main Street Businesses

Attitudes toward the land have changed considerably over the past decade. Experience has taught us that land is a complicated resource, and that one parcel of land may be better suited to a particular use than another. Natural factors such as slope, soil, groundwater, and surface water may vary across the landscape and growing communities must take these factors into consideration when planning their future, or face a decreasing quality of life.

Farmington, along with other New Hampshire communities, is growing. With this growth come changes in land use. Fields and meadows become residential areas, or commercial sites. Forests are cleared and built upon, and new roads and other services become necessary. Land once considered undesirable for development becomes more attractive as prime sites are consumed. Steep slopes, wetlands, and other sensitive environmental areas become more susceptible to development as land becomes more and more expensive. This growth and development activity

Land Use Chapter 2- 1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 reinforces the need for a master plan which can address all of these factors and illustrate how Farmington would like to grow.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify land use trends in Farmington, discuss how regulations impact such trends, and offer recommendations as to what regulatory and non-regulatory steps should be taken in the future to meet the growing housing, economic, environmental, and land use needs of the community. Existing land use is a key element to consider when attempting to predict and influence the direction of future growth. Farmington still has three distinctly different geographic areas, with each displaying different patterns and types of development. These areas are the downtown area and associated neighborhoods east of NH Route 11, the NH Route 11 Corridor, and the rural portions of Farmington west of NH Route 11.

2.0 HISTORIC LAND USE PATTERNS

Farmington is located in the northern edge of the rapidly growing Seacoast Region of New Hampshire. The community is also just south of the Lakes and White Mountain Regions. This places Farmington in a key commuter and tourist traffic corridor. Because of this unique set of circumstances, Farmington has experienced increasing development pressure, including areas along the main transportation corridor, NH Route 11. Elsewhere in the community, and overall, the largest development pressure has been from residential development.

The acreage calculations for all of the recorded land uses in Farmington can be found in Table 2- 1 below for 1962, 1974, 1998, and 2004. From 1960 to 2000 Farmington’s population grew by 91%, climbing from 3,287 to 6,303 persons. During the same general time period (1962 to 2004) Farmington’s land uses also changed, and the changes have been documented on Maps 1, 2, 3,and4 in the Appendix to this Master Plan.

Land Use Chapter 2- 2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Table 2-1 Land Use Change 1962 - 2004 Acre Acre Acre Acre Change Change Change Change Land Use Acres Acres 1962- Acres 1974- Acres 1998 - 1962- Description 1962 1974 1974 1998 1998 2004 2004 2004 Residential 601.5 931.8 330.3 1661.1 729.3 1934.6 273.5 1333.1 Industrial / Commercial 33.5 76.6 43.2 148.6 71.9 188.8 40.2 155.4 Mixed Urban 83.4 50.4 -33.0 85.4 35.0 109.9 24.5 26.5 Roads1 324.5 345.7 21.1 394.3 48.6 408.2 14.0 83.7 Railroads1 17.0 17.0 0.0 16.1 -0.9 16.1 0.0 -0.9 Auxillary Transportation 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Playing Fields / Rec 7.1 7.2 0.1 92.6 85.4 126.4 33.8 119.3 Agriculture 1204.4 928.1 -276.4 702.9 -225.2 685.4 -17.5 -519.0 Farmsteads 68.5 52.2 -16.3 65.4 13.2 65.4 0.0 -3.1 Forested 20048.3 19817.4 -230.9 18900.6 -916.8 18582.0 -318.5 -1466.3 Water1 283.3 336.6 53.4 384.2 47.5 383.5 -0.7 100.2 Open Wetland1 227.9 334.6 106.7 430.4 95.8 430.4 0.0 202.5 Idle/ Other Open 740.5 741.9 1.4 758.2 16.3 709.2 -49.0 -31.3 Total Acres 23639.9 23639.9 23639.9 23640.1 Note: 1 – Some land uses actually show a slight decrease where one may not exist. This is because the process used to convert the aerial photograph data into GIS maps generates minor change from time period to time period that is capturing map quality and interpretation differences as opposed to landscape change.

Analysis of this Table also reveals that the amount of agricultural land in Farmington was reduced by 43%, and the forestlands were reduced by 7%, during this forty year time period. The largest land use changes are the 222% increase in residential land uses, and the 519% increase in industrial and commercial land uses during this time period. Figure 2-2 illustrates the trends created by changes in the amount of residential and agricultural land uses in Farmington.

Land Use Chapter 2- 3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Figure 2-2 Residential and Agricultural Land Use Trends

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 1962 1974 1998 2004 agricultural residential

3.0 EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS

Farmington covers 23,639 acres and now displays a typical land use pattern prevalent throughout the region: concentrated mixed use development in the downtown area; an automobile-oriented highway commercial corridor; scattered rural development; and working landscapes. Overall, the community is still largely rural in nature, with a downtown village at its core. The community has experienced a great deal of land use change during the past forty years. Forestlands now account for less than 80% of the town. Meanwhile, residential uses account for more than 10% of Farmington’s land area, and industrial/commercial uses account for 1%. Residential uses impact an even larger area than Table 2-1 represents because the balance of their lots, often identified as forest or agriculture on the land use maps, are actually residential in nature.

Although the loss of agricultural lands and properties with key natural resources is of great concern to residents, the larger concern is the spread of development across Farmington’s landscape. This relatively low density development is costly to the community because of the need to provide town services to a larger area (police, fire, school busing, road maintenance, etc.), and it blurs the edges between the urban and rural portions of the New Subdivision Activity off Route 75 community. If this trend continues, the community

Land Use Chapter 2- 4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 will most likely become more suburban in nature, and will risk losing its distinctly New England character.

3.1 Downtown

The original centers in Farmington were the villages in the western part of the community, but the railroad and mills drew a large portion of the population and the related activities to an area that now encompasses the downtown. The majority of Farmington’s more intense development is now east of NH Route 11. Located at the intersection of NH Routes 153 and 75, the town center is the focus of residential, commercial, governmental, and community functions. Historically, this was also where the major industrial employment opportunities were located. The industrial sector has gradually moved out to NH Route 11 due to easier access to regional and interstate transportation facilities, and the decline of manufacturing facilities in the downtown area has continued due to economic trends

The downtown area is served by public water and sewer and a well developed street network, all allowing a relatively high density of development. Although commercial development has been increasingly moving out to NH Route 11, the downtown still provides a large number of commercial and service related activities focused mainly on serving local residents,. The commercial development of downtown exhibits the characteristics of a traditional compact New England village. Commercial structures are two to three stories tall, constructed of wood and brick, and complement each other well. The downtown is the only area in Farmington that exhibits this concentrated, commercial land use pattern. Farmington’s Town Hall, police station, fire station, public library, post office, and all of the public schools are within, or directly adjacent to, the downtown area. Farmington’s major private recreational area, the Farmington Country Club, is also directly adjacent to the downtown.

Residential development in the eastern portion of Farmington is primarily in the downtown area, with the exception of Chestnut Hill Road, which is roughly parallel to Route 11 and east of the Cocheco River, and is a heavily developed residential road. Residential development in the downtown consists mostly of older, two-story homes on small lots served by both town water and town sewer. The sidewalk system is extensive throughout the downtown area. While there are some maintenance issues, walking to commercial and governmental uses is easily accomplished. There is an interest in seeing the system of sidewalks expanded, better linking the downtown, school, and recreational sites. The existing residential development on the outskirts of the downtown in this eastern section of Farmington is becoming increasingly suburban in character. Homes are generally newer than in the town center, and the lots are often larger. The houses generally sit back from the road and are surrounded by large lawns and trees.

3.2 NH Route 11 Corridor

The NH Route 11 Corridor is the major transportation feature in Farmington, and carries a large amount of through traffic heading north and south. According to the NH Department of Transportation, the average annual daily traffic on NH Route 11 continues to increase. See Table 2-3 below for detailed traffic count information from two locations. There is some seasonal variability to the traffic volumes. Because of this traffic volume and the nature of the

Land Use Chapter 2- 5 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 road as an arterial, the character of this corridor is different from anywhere else in the community.

Table 2-3 Farmington Traffic Counts

Location 1994 1996 1997 2001 2002 NH Route 11 at the New Durham Town Line 7,200 9,800 12,000 NH Route 11 at the Rochester Town Line 12,000 14,000 15,000 Source: NH Department of Transportation

Businesses now located on NH Route 11 cover a wide range of services including small antique shops, a state liquor store, gas stations, a pharmacy, and auto repair shops. The common characteristics among these businesses are that they are automobile-oriented and depend on passing traffic and non-resident patronage more than the businesses in the downtown. Development is generally spread along the length of the roadway in Farmington with a greater concentration along the southern section of the corridor near the Rochester town line. The intersection of NH Routes 11 and 153 has the largest concentration of development activity within the corridor, and is currently being reconstructed as a major signalized intersection. Route 11 Commercial Development This is an auto-oriented environment, and is not pedestrian friendly.

The land along this roadway has developed incrementally. Although there are undeveloped or lightly developed sections, much of it now exhibits a strip development pattern. Most of this strip development is concentrated on the road frontage and generally has little or no depth back from the road. Highway access is the primary factor driving this type of development; however, the local regulations have also been a factor. This has created an environment that lacks local character, and is starting to erode the sense of place that is Farmington.

3.3 Rural Lands

Farmington is sparsely developed west of NH Route 11, and this section of the community is generally rural in character. This portion of the community contains an Smith Farm array of valuable natural resources, and extensive recreational opportunities exist at Blue Job Mountain State Forest, Baxter Lake, the

Land Use Chapter 2- 6 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 various ponds in the area, and within the large unfragmented blocks of land. Approximately 90% of the land area still supports farm and forestry activities. This area supplies drinking water to the City of Rochester. The mixture of uses here presently includes low density residential, commercial, home businesses, farming, and forestry activities.

Development in this area is generally along existing roads, and the existing road network consists of a mix of paved and dirt roads in varying conditions. New development in this area tends to be on relatively large lots. New road construction has been minimal, but a number of the town roads have been upgraded and this appears to have encouraged some additional residential development in parts of the community that had previously been inconvenient to access. Public water and public sewer are not available in this area.

4.0 FUTURE LAND USE

Farmington’s desired future land use pattern should be driven by all of the previous elements. It should reflect the vision statement, which speaks of a stronger economy, of a more vibrant downtown, and of clustered and nodal development, rather than a uniform spreading of residential, commercial, and industrial activity across the community. The future land use pattern should be driven by the natural resource chapter, and by the need to protect open space and important groundwater resources. It needs to reflect the likely development pressure that Farmington will experience, and respond to it realistically, providing opportunities on a level that are consistent with those market forces.

To put numbers on that anticipated growth, assuming no significant change in regulations that affect rate of growth, present trends indicate that over the next ten years Farmington:

Will continue to grow at about seventy housing units per year;

Will likely experience a demand for fifty new acres of industrial land, with perhaps as much as 600,000 square feet of new building space; and

Will experience a demand for some thirty new acres of commercial land, again with as much as 600,000 square feet of new building space.

It should be noted that that projected growth will bring the total number of households very close to 3200. With the 2.55 persons per household that has been the norm in Farmington of late, it will likely become the home of over 8,000 people by the end of that ten year period. The nature of that anticipated growth and development, and its placement on the landscape, will be driven by market forces, by individual landowner’s preferences, and by Farmington’s land use policies and ordinances: its zoning ordinance, its site plan and subdivision regulations, its capital improvement plan, and others. Map 5 outlines how the Farmington Planning Board would like to see all of these forces brought together. What follows is a written summary of those desired future outcomes.

As envisioned by the Farmington Planning Board, after a review of the extensive community surveying and interviewing undertaken by the Zoning and Master Plan Committee, and so as to

Land Use Chapter 2- 7 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 achieve the Vision outlined in the beginning of this master plan, this new growth could best be accommodated while retaining the essential community character, while meeting market forces, and while protecting the community’s natural resources, as follows:

By concentrating residential development in the following areas:

In a node of single family and multi-family projects in the eastern corner of Farmington, along both sides of Governor’s Road and parts of Chestnut Hill Road. Cluster development patterns should be encouraged here.

In another node of housing off of Chestnut Hill Road, between that road and the Farmington Country Club, on the east side of the Cocheco River. Again, an emphasis on cluster development is suggested here.

In the downtown, with efforts made to redevelop the upper floors of some of the downtown commercial blocks into residential units where possible as well as upgrading some of the existing apartment buildings.

Open Space Cluster Development should be encouraged in the area around Baxter Lake.

By concentrating commercial and industrial development:

On both in-fill and on redevelopment sites in the village core. The commercial development here needs to be of a nature and scale that is consistent with the village environment.

In a nodal development pattern along Route 11 rather than in linear strips of development. The identified nodes should fit the following criteria:

• Consider the natural characteristics of the land; • Areas with existing development should be a higher priority than previously undeveloped areas; • Nodes of development should run back from the highway corridor, where conditions permit this, rather than along the highway frontage like a strip development; • Nodes of development should be separated by very low density areas; • Access management techniques should be maximized when designing access to the developable areas from Route 11, and in the design of the internal circulation system between uses.

The first two locations on Route 11 that should be considered for development nodes include:

• The area bounded by Route 11, Tappan Street, and Central Street. The uses within this node should generate a moderate number of vehicle trips. This node is seen as a logical connector between Route 11 and a strengthened downtown and could include a mix of both new and infill development of a residential and commercial nature. • The area around the intersection of Main Street and Route 11. This node could include the expansion and redefinition of the Sarah Greenfield industrial park, and could include a mix of commercial and industrial uses.

Land Use Chapter 2- 8 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 In all of these areas, development would be drawn to these nodes by limiting the type and density of uses along other parts of Route 11, and by adjusting the zoning in these nodal areas to offer bonuses, incentives, and increased densities to attract development to these areas. After a node has been developed the town should consider allowing higher density residential development adjacent to the back side of the node to make the most of the access point to Route 11, and the adjacent commercial activity.

Development along the west side of Route 11 is envisioned as being somewhat limited to the immediate highway corridor itself, and not spreading further west. Development along the eastside of Route 11 needs to transition from the highway to the smaller scale of the village core, and, as noted below, needs to be sensitive to natural resource issues and recreational opportunities along the Cocheco River corridor.

Extending sewer lines to these nodal areas would require significant improvements to the sewage treatment facility, and survey respondents indicated that they would only support such an extension of infrastructure if there was a detailed plan. If it is determined that new lines are needed they can be constructed by the community, or by private developers. One regulatory tool for the community to consider when the sewage treatment facility has been upgraded, and new sewer lines are needed, is a Tax Increment Financing District. This would provide a mechanism for funding these infrastructure improvements.

There is a concern within the community that greater use of the sewage treatment facility by new commercial and industrial uses could compromise the quality and safety of the community’s sludge. This issue needs to be examined further, and standards should be developed to identify which substances and levels are acceptable. If standards are in place the community can assess the potential impact of a new user on the quality of the sludge. If the impact will be too great alternative treatment options may be a possibility.

By protecting the community’s natural resource base and rural character

The community should continue to work to protect the most sensitive of natural resources in the Cocheco River valley, in the area bounded by Spring Street and Old Bay Road, in cooperation with neighboring towns, and by seeking to foster cluster development patterns in the hilly, rural landscape west of Route 11. The majority of residents (82%) responding to the survey indicated that the town should do more to preserve open space in Farmington. The majority of respondents (62%) also favor using local funds to acquire land and keep it as permanent open space. There are several large unfragmented blocks of land that Farmington shares with neighboring communities. The town should communicate with these communities to ensure that opportunities to preserve these resources are coordinated, and neither town carelessly or unknowingly impacts one of these large blocks.

In the future, the community may wish to consider whether to require cluster development patterns on properties with prime agricultural soils, over aquifers, or that contain other sensitive resources. It also may wish, over time, to discuss whether to require cluster development plans in projects over a certain number of units. This is of concern throughout all of the community, and

Land Use Chapter 2- 9 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 particularly so in the largely rural and undeveloped land that is west of Route 11, and in the upper reaches of the Cocheco Watershed east of Route 11.

The survey showed support for the expansion of water and sewer lines if there was a specific plan, and many respondents (46%) also indicated that they would support such expansion where it would protect natural resources. Based on this support consideration should be given to extending water and sewer lines to the Spring Street area because studies have indicated that residences in the area are a pollution source for the Cocheco River.

By requiring a higher quality of non-residential development

There is a concern that some non-residential development, particularly along Route 11 where the traveling public gets its primary view of Farmington, has not always been of the highest caliber. Not only does this create a poor image of Farmington, but it uses up valuable land resources in a manner that does not contribute as much as it might to the local tax base.

Reasonable improvements to the community’s site plan review regulations could establish improved standards for the quality of design, construction, landscaping, and parking lot configuration for non-residential properties. The creation of a design manual and design guidelines for non-residential uses outside of the downtown, similar to the one being completed for the downtown area, would help foster higher quality design.

By monitoring and evaluating the mix of housing types

As a matter of public policy, until the concentration of mobile homes in Farmington is consistent with that in other surrounding communities, Farmington wishes to permit mobile homes on individual, private lots just as they would any other form of construction, but to remove mobile home parks as a development option.

By monitoring and evaluating all growth and development

Farmington undertook this master planning effort concurrent with adopting an Interim Growth Management Ordinance in the fall of 2003. In a careful and thoughtful process it has measured its current growth against that being experienced by its neighbors. Consistent with state law, it has also evaluated its municipal facilities and evaluated its ability to provide adequate sewer and water and educational facilities.

The results of this evaluation indicate that those facilities are able to accommodate reasonable levels (approximately 70 building permits per year) of new population growth. Farmington is concerned, however, that a few large projects could start to tax some or all of those facilities.

It is the recommendation of this plan that Farmington both undertake some modest, immediate changes to its zoning ordinance, and that it prepare, on a longer term basis, a growth management ordinance with an annual building permit cap that would only be activated when certain regularly monitored criteria (such as building permits issued, school capacity, and water and sewer capacity) exceed certain pre-specified levels.

Land Use Chapter 2- 10 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

The Farmington Planning Board recognizes that some of these goals will require changes in its regulatory framework, but it feels that the benefits will be worth that extra effort, and it commits to working on those pieces that are necessary in order to achieve a better Farmington for all of its citizens into the future.

Land Use Chapter 2- 11 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Chapter 3 Natural Resources

The Flume, Mad River Chapter 3 Natural Resources

1.0 Introduction 9.1 Point Sources, Ground Water 2.0 Climate 9.2 Point Sources, Surface Water 3.0 Topography 9.3 Potential Non-Point Pollution 3.1 Land Use Implications Sources 3.2 Potential Actions 9.4 Land Use Implications 4.0 Slope 9.5 Potential Actions 4.1 Land Use Implications 10.0 Forest & Agricultural Use 4.2 Potential Actions 10.1 History of Agricultural Lands 5.0 Geology in New Hampshire 5.1 Land Use Implications 10.2 Existing Agricultural Land 5.2 Potential Actions Use in Farmington 6.0 Soils 10.3 Land Use Implications 6.1 The Soil Survey 10.4 Potential Actions 6.2 Important Farmland Soils 10.5 Forest Lands 6.3 Land Capability and Lot Size 10.6 Forest Planning 6.4 Land Use Implications 10.7 Land Use Implications 6.5 Potential Actions 10.8 Potential Actions 7.0 Wetlands 11.0 Conservation Lands 7.1 Wetland Delineation 11.1 Moose Mountains Regional 7.2 Wetland Soil Survey Greenways 7.3 Prime Wetlands 11.2 Land Use Implications 7.4 Wetland Permitting 11.3 Potential Actions 7.5 Land Use Implications 12.0 Wildlife Resources 7.6 Potential Actions 12.1 Habitat 8.0 Water Resources 12.2 Species 8.1 Watersheds 12.3 Endangered/Threatened 8.2 Surface Water Plants and Animals 8.3 Floodplains 12.4 Hunting 8.4 Dams 12.5 Fishery 8.5 Water Supply 12.6 Land Use Implications 8.6 Land Use Implications 12.7 Potential Actions 8.7 Potential Actions 13.0 Summary 9.0 Point and non-Point Source Pollution

Natural Resources Chapter 3-1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Farmington is a rural community with exceptional natural resources. Significant water resources, agricultural lands, and unfragmented blocks of land support the community’s health, economy, tax base, wildlife species, recreation activities, and quality of life. The type and distribution of the town’s natural resource base also influences the location and type of development that takes place within the community. Some areas of the community are better suited for a particular use than others, based on the natural resources that are present there. Agricultural Land Along Poor Farm Road

The information provided in this chapter will allow Farmington to determine compatible future uses for certain land areas, and significant resource areas that are not currently protected. Farmington, just like natural resources, does not exist in isolation. It is hoped that this chapter will alert residents of Farmington to the importance of the natural integrity of the entire region, and their role in this natural system. At the end of each section within this chapter land use implications have been identified, and potential policy actions have been suggested. The policy actions will be incorporated into the Implementation Chapter of the Master Plan to provide a work program for the town upon completion of the Master Plan. Farmington's Natural Resource Inventory is an adjunct to the Master Plan, and contains additional detail about each of the resources outlined in this chapter.

2.0 CLIMATE

Typical of Northern New England, the primary characteristic of Farmington’s climate is the ability for conditions to change very quickly. A large range of temperatures and conditions can be experienced in a single day, and are guaranteed over the course of a year. The area also experiences great differences between the same seasons from year to year. The average annual temperature in Farmington is 45 degrees Fahrenheit although it can dip well below zero for periods of time during the winter, and exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit at times in the summer months.

During the warmer half of the year most of the precipitation comes from showers and thunderstorms. Frontal precipitation in the colder season is occasionally supplemented by coastal "Northeasters" which can bring a strong wind and heavy snowfall, and on occasion, rain or sleet. Farmington receives an average of 36 inches of precipitation annually. The average annual snowfall amount for Farmington is 63.5 inches.

Additional climate data is available at http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/gyx/climate.shtml#daily_summary.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 2.1 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s climate has a direct impact on the landscape. Here are a few summary points to consider related to the climate in Farmington.

1) With precipitation distributed evenly throughout the year Farmington has the ability to replenish its many ponds, streams, and aquifers. This sustains the health of the surface waters and recharges groundwater reserves.

2) Seasonal changes contribute to the character of the region, and the variety of recreational and economic activities available. Air pollution from vehicles, homes, and commercial and industrial facilities threatens the character of our seasons, and the quality of our water. Recognition of the role local activities have on the global problem of climate change will help to preserve these distinct seasons and the industries and character they support.

3) Snow storage or “dumping” in sensitive areas can have a negative impact on the natural systems in Farmington.

4) Road salt use and storage can negatively impact natural resources in Farmington and beyond.

2.2 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the impact of the climate on Farmington and the land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Pursue the use of alternative fuels in town vehicles and the school bus fleet. The NH Office of Energy & Planning can guide the community through such a transition.

2) Encourage carpooling and alternative modes of transportation (biking, walking, public transportation) to reduce automobile emissions in the region.

3) Work with local industries in the region, to promote alternative modes of transportation to reduce emissions.

4) Snow removed from streets and parking areas should be stored away from wetlands and water bodies. This will allow for a higher rate of filtering out of pollutants and infiltration of water as it melts.

5) Road salt should be stored in a covered facility in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Snow removed from streets and parking areas should be stored away from wetlands and water bodies. This will allow for a higher rate of filtering out of pollutants and infiltration of water as it melts.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.0 TOPOGRAPHY

Topography describes surface features of the land in terms of shape, relief and relative positions of natural features. Topography is usually expressed as elevation (height above mean sea level) and slope (change in vertical distance over horizontal distance). Topography affects several natural processes, such as climate, drainage, erosion, wind patterns and vegetative growth, in turn affecting man's activities.

Farmington’s topography is a mixture of various terrain features. Farmington is mostly rolling hills East and West of the Cocheco River valley. The highest point in Farmington is Blue Job Mountain at 1,357 feet above mean sea level. The lowest point is approximately 235 feet above mean sea level at the Farmington/Rochester Town Line on the Cocheco River. There are a number of low peaks in the Western part of town including Nubble Mountain, Hussey Mountain and Chelsey Mountain. See Map 8 for additional information on Farmington’s topography.

3.1 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s topography plays a major role in the location and impact of future development in town. Here are a few summary points to consider related to Farmington’s topography.

1) River valleys are often the easiest areas to develop, and a majority of Farmington’s development exists in the Cocheco River Valley. These areas also contain all of the floodplain areas, most of the surface water bodies, and critical wetlands. Minimizing the impact of development in these areas is critical to the quality of both surface and sub-surface waters.

2) Development at higher elevations on the high ridges and lower hills in Farmington presents a different set of challenges and impacts. Without thoughtful site design, these areas can greatly impact the scenic character of the community and disrupt scenic views. Access to these areas also provides an opportunity for increased environmental impacts (erosion, increased runoff rates, longer roadways, and fragmentation of habitat to name a few).

3) The variety of topography within Farmington contributes to wildlife habitat and diversity, and recreational opportunities. Ensuring connections between these distinct areas will ensure continued biodiveristy.

3.2 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the topography in Farmington and its land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Consider a ridgeline development ordinance to limit the impact of developments at higher elevations.

2) Pursue land protection opportunities that create corridors of contiguous open space between the currently protected lands.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3) Designate topographically defined viewshed areas of high value and make open space subdivision mandatory in those areas. 4.0 SLOPE

Slope is the amount of rise or fall in feet for a given horizontal distance and is expressed in percent. A 6% slope means that for a 100-foot horizontal distance the rise or fall in height is 6 feet. The slope of the land can have a great effect on development, and percent slope can greatly impact the economic and physical feasibility of development. The steeper the slope, the more it will cost for septic systems, driveways, foundations, etc. Additionally, as the slope increases so does the potential for an increase in erosion, stormwater runoff, and nutrient movement. Poor soil conditions combined with steep slopes can present significant development constraints. See Map 8 for an analysis of slope in Farmington.

Slopes in Farmington have been placed into three categories on Map 8: below 15%, 15 - 25%, and greater than 25%. Generally, slopes over 25% are considered undevelopable. Slopes between 15 and 25 percent are difficult and costly to develop. Slopes under 15% are generally considered the upper limits for practical development.

4.1 Land Use Implications

Slopes within Farmington also play a major role in the location and impact of future development in town. Here are a few summary points to consider related to slopes in Farmington’s.

1) The majority of Farmington is covered in slopes less than 15%, which are considered developable. This will have an effect on the future development pattern of the community because large areas of the community may be fairly easy to develop in the future.

2) As steeper slopes are developed, costs increase for both the property owner and the community. Construction and maintenance of roads becomes more costly on steeper slopes. Problems with erosion, stormwater runoff, and non-point pollution are also increased.

4.2 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the topography in Farmington and its land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Review site plan review regulations to ensure they reinforce the Steep Slope Development Standards, and reduce the impact of development on steep slopes.

2) Farmington’s regulations, relative to erosion and sediment control, should be revisited to ensure that they are following the most current “best management practices” (BMPs).

Natural Resources Chapter 3-5 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 5.0 GEOLOGY

The geologic history of any area is the basis for many of its natural characteristics such as topography, groundwater systems, drainage patterns, mineral resources, and origin of the soil. New Hampshire’s geologic history has formed a variety of land features and mineral resources. Plate tectonics contributed to the formation of granite bedrock. Long periods of erosion shaped the hills and mountains. Most recently, repeated glacial activity provided some finishing touches to a land that had been evolving for perhaps 400 million years. Current landscape features remind us of this rich geologic history. Ring dykes indicate past volcanic activity, fault lines demonstrate where land was uplifted by tremendous forces, and eskers, drumlins, kettlehholes, and many other features are evidence of glaciation.

Bedrock Geology

As the name implies, bedrock geology is concerned with the underlying rock or ledge. Formed hundreds of millions of years ago, Farmington’s bedrock is composed mostly of igneous rocks such as granite, and metamorphic rock such as schist. The metamorphic rock was formed under heat and pressure from many layers of mud, sand, and silt. It was later uplifted by the earth’s internal forces.

Surficial Geology

Surficial geology includes all of the deposits above bedrock. The surface layer of weathered material (i.e. soil) is not included in the study of surficial geology (for information on soils in Farmington see Section 6 of this chapter). Surface deposits are unconsolidated, loose conglomerations of rock fragments. These surface deposits in Farmington are the result of glaciation. As the glaciers advanced the bedrock was scraped and gouged, and this material was picked up and carried along in the glacial ice. This glacial advance, or scraping, did not drastically alter the topography of the area. The profiles of the mountains appear much as they did before the Ice Age. However, the glaciers did have an impact on the valleys.

As the climate warmed and the ice retreated, it deposited two major types of material—till and glacial outwash deposits. Till is composed of a mixture of soil and rock fragments that were scoured loose by the moving ice, carried for a distance, and then deposited directly as the melting ice released its unsorted contents. It is generally highly compacted and contains many large angular stones and boulders. Glacial melt waters also deposited material, but the moving waters actually sorted the material and deposited like sizes together along glacial streams or in glacial pools and lakes. These are outwash deposits. They are the stratified sand and gravel deposits that line the rivers. Outwash deposits are important economically for mining purposes, but they also serve as major groundwater-recharge areas. An example of this is the large stratified drift aquifer that exists under the Cocheco River. Glacial drumlins and eskers are common in this part of the state, giving this region its rolling topography. Much of Farmington’s gravel features have been mined. Although some mining of sand and gravel continues today in Farmington, many other communities have seen mineral mining firms turning their interest to stone assets, and as a result seeking permits for blasting to create aggregate.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-6 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 5.1 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s geology has an effect on land use decisions and impacts future development in the community. Here are a few summary points to consider related to the geology in Farmington .

1) The use of outwash deposits in commercial sand and gravel operations could alter the performance of these areas as groundwater recharge areas. As material is removed and the geology is altered, water will not be filtered and stored in the same manner. This could result either in a reduction in the amount of water available to future generations, or its quality as less filtering is available.

2) It is important to carefully regulate the type and intensity of future uses wishing to locate on previously mined sites. This is due to the increased potential to negatively impact the ground water resources below.

3) The impacts of sand and gravel operations are often cited as concerns. Increased truck traffic, noise, erosion, and airborne particles can create problems for abutters, and should be mitigated.

5.2 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the geology in Farmington and its land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan

1) The Town should revisit the Earth Excavation Regulations to ensure they protect natural resources more effectively.

6.0 SOILS

Soil is the portion of the surface of the earth that supports plants, animals, and humans. There are over 1,000 different soils in the Northeast with 74 of them represented in Farmington. Soils information is an intricate part of a natural resources analysis because it provides a wealth of data concerning the capability of land to support various land uses. Soils differ from one another in their physical, chemical and biological properties. Soil properties which affect its capacity to support development include depth, permeability, wetness, slope, susceptibility to erosion, flood hazard, stoniness, among others.

6.1 The Soil Survey

Soil scientists from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have collected soil information for Farmington. As they walked the land, they regularly sampled the soil to depths of 40 inches or more, and each soil was examined for characteristics such as color, texture, structure, etc. From this information, lines were drawn on aerial photographs outlining the boundaries of the different soils. Numbers were placed within each mapping unit to identify the type of soil found.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-7 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 One important note in using a soils map is that changes from one soil to another are not usually abrupt, but are gradual. Thus, the line on the map represents a transition zone rather than an absolute boundary. Because of the scale of the map, mapping units are not 100% accurate. On- site soil investigations are necessary for determining exact soil boundaries.

Two publications that provide more detailed information about soils in Farmington are Soil Potential Ratings for Development dated July 1987 and written by the Strafford County Conservation District, and the Soil Survey of Strafford County, New Hampshire published by the Soil Conservation Service in March 1973.

Soil Condition Groups The 74 soil mapping unit soils found in Farmington can be broken down into 7 natural categories or groups:

Group 1-Wetland Soils These are poorly and very poorly drained soils that are wet most of the year. The water table is at or near the surface 7 to 12 months of the year. See Section 7 Wetlands for more information.

Group 2-Seasonally-Wet Soils Included in this group are moderately well-drained soils that have a water table 1 to 1 ½ feet below the ground and where the soil is wet from late fall to late spring.

Group 3-Floodplain Soils These soils are subject to periodic flooding. Their formation has been the result of sediment deposited from past floodwaters. Group 4-Sand and Gravelly Soils These well drained to excessively well-drained soils are formed in sand and gravel deposits. This group often has economic value and is found within aquifer areas.

Group 5-Shallow to Bedrock Soils These soils have formed on a thin layer of glacial till which is underlain by bedrock. Steep slopes with exposed bedrock are common in some of these soils.

Group 6-Compact Till Soils The soils in this group are well drained and have formed in compact glacial till. A hardpan layer is generally found about 2-3 feet below the ground surface. Water moves down-slope on these soils over the hardpan layer and comes to the surface as seep spots.

Group 7-Deep Loose Till Soils This group consists of well-drained sands or loamy soils that have formed in glacial till. The water table is commonly more than four feet below the ground and bedrock is more than 5 feet below the surface. The soils contain many angular stones of varying sizes.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-8 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 6.2 Important Farmland Soils

The NRCS has identified a subset of the soils in Strafford County that are best suited for farming. Prime farmland soils are those soils that the NRCS has determined will produce the highest yields at the lowest cost. According to NRCS, prime farmland soil:

“....has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, forest land, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt content, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood or are protected from flooding.”

In addition to prime farmlands, the NRCS has designated Farmland Soils of Statewide Importance and Farmland Soils of Local Importance. Farmland Soils of Statewide Importance are defined as:

“...land, in addition to prime and unique farmlands, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Criteria for defining and delineating this land are to be determined by the appropriate State agency or agencies. Generally, additional farmlands of statewide importance include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable.”

Farmland Soils of Local Importance are defined as:

“...additional farmlands for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops, even though these lands are not identified as having national or statewide importance. Where appropriate, these lands are to be identified by the local agency or agencies concerned.”

The characteristics of prime farmland make it particularly susceptible to development pressures. While the cost of producing a crop is low, so is the cost of developing these soils for residential or other nonagricultural uses. The need to conserve this soil resource is critical to the future of agriculture in Farmington. The economic viability of farming large contiguous tracts of prime farmland soils is degraded when these tracts are fragmented by development. Farming is recognized as an important part of the local and regional economy as well as part of the heritage of Farmington. Map 8 identifies the important farmland soils in Farmington and their current use. See section 10 for a discussion of the importance of retaining the option to raise local produce.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-9 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

6.3 Land Capability and Lot Size

Each soil-mapping unit found in New Hampshire has been rated for its ability to support a residential or commercial lot, based on a formula that has water quality as its primary concern. Potential pollution sources considered were septic systems, lawns, and impermeable surfaces. The assessment of suitability was based on a report by the NHDES entitled “Environmental Planning For Onsite Wastewater Treatment in NH”. The formula, which uses nitrogen loading as its benchmark for pollution, was applied to each soil type and a minimum soil based lot size was determined for each mapping unit. Lots on the best soils that are capable of utilizing the most nutrients onsite, require a 35,500 square foot lot, which is the minimum. As the soils decrease in their ability to utilize nitrogen, the lot sizes increase.

6.4 Land Use Implications

The soils within Farmington play a major role in the location and impact of future development in the community. Here are a few summary points to consider related to soils in Farmington.

1) Soil characteristics such as depth, permeability, wetness, and slope can be used to evaluate land to determine development suitability and dwelling unit densities.

2) Locating new development in areas without water and sewer infrastructure requires taking a much closer look at the ability of the soils on the lot to handle a well and septic system discharge. Soil information should be used as a determinant of what constitutes an environmentally sound building lot to prevent degradation of the environment and negative impacts on abutting property owners.

3) Farmland soils are a precious resource with great value to the community and the region. See Section 10 in this Chapter for additional information on this resource.

6.5 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the soils in Farmington and their land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Base lot sizes in the rural areas of town (not served by water and sewer) on land capability. A flexible, soil based lot-size regulation should be adopted.

2) Evaluate future sewer and water line extensions on the land capability of the area being included and the desired development pattern for the community.

3) Maintain and encourage the use of the Open Space - Cluster Development Regulation that facilitates the protection of valuable farm and forest soils existing on the site by clustering the structures on other portions of the property that are more appropriate for development.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-10 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 7.0 WETLANDS

One of the most important, environmentally-sensitive natural resources in Farmington are wetlands. Farmington has been making progress toward the protection of its important wetland resources. The Town recently completed an inventory and analysis of the existing wetlands resources in conjunction with Moose Mountain Regional Greenways. The foresight to protect Farmington’s wetlands now will help insure clean groundwater, ponds, and streams, and a more balanced natural system in the future. Wetlands, as defined by the EPA, the Army Corp of Engineers, and the NH DES are: Wetland Area Below Blue Job Mountain

"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."

There are many reasons why wetlands are valuable to the community. Some of those reasons are flood control, erosion control, pollution filtration, water supply, wildlife habitat, environmental health and diversity, recreation, and aesthetics. These are but a few of the important functions wetlands perform in helping protect the quality of water, land, and the community.

Wetlands perform all of these functions with no charge to society. Dams, tertiary sewage treatment plants, water purification plants, dikes, and other sophisticated and expensive man- made water control measures all try to copy what wetlands do naturally. Each acre of existing wetland provides significant benefits to Farmington.

7.1 Wetland Delineation

Wetlands are difficult to define and delineate. Words such as swamp, bog, marsh, lowland, and floodplain are often used, but are confusing and overlapping. In New Hampshire, the yearly water cycle causes tremendous variation in the level of water in the particular area. During the spring, an area might have two feet of water on its surface while that same area in September may not have water on its surface at all. Any definition of wetlands must take this variation in water levels into account, and any delineation of wetlands requires the identification of the wetland-non wetland boundary on the landscape. For the purpose of this master plan, wetlands are defined as poorly and very poorly drained soils.

7.2 Wetland Soil Survey

A soil survey is a map on which the natural soil is identified and its distribution delineated. Boundaries of individual soils are plotted on aerial photographs after a soil scientist has traversed the land digging test holes in order to identify the soil, as discussed in Section 6 of this chapter. However, a few comments on soil drainage are necessary here.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-11 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 One of the characteristics soil scientists use to differentiate soil is drainage. Drainage is broken into five categories:

1. Excessively well drained – water is removed from the soil very rapidly. 2. Well drained – water is removed from the soil readily, but not rapidly. The depth to seasonal high water table is generally more than 3 feet. 3. Moderately well drained – water is removed from the soil somewhat slowly. The water table is generally within 3 feet of the ground surface for 3 months of the year. 4. Poorly drained – water is removed from the soils so slowly that the water table is at or near the surface 7 to 9 months of the year. 5. Very poorly drained – water is removed from the soils so slowly that the water table remains at or on the ground surface more than 9 months of the year.

Very poorly drained soils have a layer of muck, or peat, that overlies the mineral soil material (sand, silt, or clay). The layer of organic matter could range in thickness from a few inches to several feet, depending on the soil forming processes. Poorly drained soils are relatively better drained so they have only a very thin layer of muck and peat, if any at all.

Map 8 shows Farmington’s significant wetland resources. A wetland is defined as a contiguous area of poorly or very poorly drained soils. Poorly drained soils occupy 11.6% of the community, and very poorly drained soils occupy 3.65%. Wetlands cover 17.58% of Farmington’s total land area. Table 3-1 below provides additional data related to Farmington’s wetland resources.

Table 3-1 Farmington Wetlands

Acres % of % of Wetland Predictor Type Town Wetlands

Very Poorly Drained (Hydric A) 863.4 3.7 % 20.8 %

Poorly Drained (Hydric B) 2757.4 11.7 % 66.3 %

National Wetlands Inventory Predicted 1267.6 5.4% 30.5 %

Total of areas of NWI and all Hydric soils (intersection) 732.3 3.1 % 17.6 %

Total of areas of Hydric or NWI-predicted wetlands 4156.1 17.6 % 100.00 %

(Total town land area = 23639.880 acres)

7.3 Prime Wetlands

The State of New Hampshire allows communities to designate “Prime Wetlands.” This designation means that the NH Wetlands Bureau, when receiving applications for dredging or filling wetlands, will apply an extra layer of rules defined by state law to applications involving wetlands designated by the town as “prime.” The first step in the designation process is an inventory and assessment of the town’s wetlands using the “NH Method.”

Natural Resources Chapter 3-12 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Submitting wetlands to the NH Wetlands Bureau for Prime Wetland status requires preparing a map of the wetland area, a vote at a town meeting, and submitting a prime wetlands application to the NH Wetlands Bureau for approval. Farmington has no Prime Wetlands designated at this time, but the recent wetlands study conducted by Moose Mountains Regional Greenway contains all the mapping and support needed to file for Prime Wetlands designation.

7.4 Wetland Permitting

Projects which impact wetlands in Farmington are regulated by federal, state, and local regulations. The most comprehensive regulatory program is that of the NH Wetlands Bureau (NHWB). NH RSA 482-A authorizes the Department of Environmental Services (DES) to protect the State’s wetlands and surface waters by requiring a permit for dredging, filling or construction of structures in wetlands or other waters of the state. RSA-482-A and the rules promulgated under that law require that projects be designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other state jurisdictional areas. The impacts that are proposed must be only those that are unavoidable. It is the responsibility of the applicant to document these considerations in the application for a permit.

According to DES rules, each project that requires a wetlands permit is classified in one of three categories according to the type and potential square footage impact of the project – minimum, minor, or major. Many projects qualify for processing with the Minimum Impact Expedited application which may include repair and maintenance of a dock, installation of a culvert for driveway access to a single family house, or maintenance dredging of an existing pond.

Another type of project common to New Hampshire is wetland impacts due to logging. These projects are permitted through a notification process that must be filed at the same time as the “Intent To Cut” forms provided the operation is conducted in accordance with the publication, “Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire.”

Historically, Farmington has had a poor record of wetland protection. Many wetlands have been illegally dredged for peat or to make topsoil, and others have been filled for construction or other land-uses incompatible with wet soils. These actions are slowly eroding the lands’ ability to filter toxins, support important wildlife, absorb high flood waters, and allow gradual recharging of underlying aquifers.

The Farmington Zoning Ordinance adopted March 13, 2001 contains a Wetlands Conservation Overlay District which is defined by three wetland classes that are based on certain criteria and review standards.

Class One, Two and Three wetlands are defined. The Zoning Ordinance empowers the conservation commission to redesignate any wetland with proper hearings.

Class One Wetlands are those that have exceptional qualities and are worthy of the greatest degree of local protection, and are eligible for up to 100 foot protective buffer

Natural Resources Chapter 3-13 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Class Two wetlands are eligible for up to 50 foot wide protective buffers. In the Farmington NRI Wetlands and Hydric Soils Map, all NWI wetlands shown and adjacent hydric soil predicted wetlands qualify as Class Two wetlands

Class Three wetlands are all wetlands that are not Class One or Class Two.

It is important to note that designation of wetlands as Class One wetlands, Class Two wetlands, or Prime Wetlands does not automatically apply additional local protection; the Commission must designate buffers of up to the limits allowed by the zoning ordinance.

Because there are no Class One wetlands designated in Farmington as of this writing, only Class Two wetlands have any protection by zoning ordinance. The buffer is fifty feet for those wetlands that meet Class Two criteria.

Since 2000, 16 of the projects in Farmington impacting wetlands were forestry notification projects, and required no permit. All other projects required permits for which comments may be submitted to the Wetlands Bureau when deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission. In the case of projects impacting more than 10,000 square feet of wetland, applicants are now asked to propose mitigation to offset wetland loss. Mitigation can be through creating or restoring wetlands or protection of an upland buffer by conservation easement.

7.5 Land Use Implications

The wetland resources within Farmington play a major role in the location and impact of future development in the community. Here are a few summary points to consider related to wetlands in Farmington.

1) The health of Farmington’s wetlands is critical to the function of natural systems within the community.

2) It is important to point out that small wetlands (under three acres) are usually not shown on the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Maps.

3) Vernal Pools don’t always support wetland vegetation, but are critical breeding grounds for several species of frogs and salamanders. Small in size, they are an important resource in the life cycle of balanced ecosystems.

7.6 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the wetland areas in Farmington and their land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Farmington should pursue “Class One” local designation or Prime Wetland designation for the wetlands that qualify.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-14 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 2) Consideration should be given to enacting some local protective regulations for vernal pools. This would require a commitment to fund studies, and the Conservation Commission does not currently use the conservation fund for these purposes.

8.0 WATER RESOURCES

Water is our most precious natural resource. Water moves continuously in an inter- dependent fashion known as the water cycle. All water is involved in this cyclical movement that continues indefinitely. With increased land use and human activity, the water cycle can become damaged. Humans not only take water out of the cycle (drinking water, for example), but can also put polluted water back into the cycle (such as polluted runoff). However, with good planning and conservation, plentiful clean water should be available for future uses. Farmington’s water Rochester Reservoir resources are utilized by residents and businesses within the community, and supply a portion of the City of Rochester’s water supply.

8.1 Watersheds

Surface water is precipitation that does not soak into the ground, but runs off into streams, ponds, lakes, and rivers. On the average, 1/3 of the annual precipitation in Farmington is “runoff.” Watersheds are the catch basins for this runoff. Rain or snow falling within the confines of a watershed’s interconnected ridge crests, or high points, eventually becomes surface and groundwater. Watersheds may be divided into subwatersheds, which may be further divided down to almost any level; even vernal pools may be said to have their own watersheds.

A watershed is usually associated with a particular waterbody that it feeds. While surface water all tends to flow to the outlet of a watershed, this is not always true of groundwater which is subject to the fissures, pressures, and soils of the surficial and bedrock geology.

Watershed location is very important for a community to consider in its planning efforts. Quite often a particular watershed lies entirely within a single community, while larger watersheds almost never do. Water resources management in a community up-watershed may have a substantial impact on the water resources of a neighboring community down-watershed. The watershed approach to water resources planning is important because watersheds are the main units of surface and groundwater recharge. The size and physical character of the watershed has a large influence on the amount of water that ultimately will end up as surface water and groundwater. Land use within a watershed may be an important factor in water quality, therefore, it is very important for communities to work together in order to plan effectively for protection of water resources. Farmington has a history of surface water protection efforts in cooperation

Natural Resources Chapter 3-15 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 with the City of Rochester. The Watershed Protection Overlay District in Farmington is a valuable tool when applied.

8.2 Surface Water

Major water bodies in Farmington include Baxter Lake, Rochester Reservoir, Oxbow Pond, Nubble Pond, and several unnamed bodies of water. Streams are classified by the State using the Strahler method, where the highest year round streams in a watershed are first order streams, their juncture yields a second order stream, the juncture of two second order streams yield a third order and the junction of third order streams yield a fourth order. There are no fourth order or higher rivers in Farmington, therefore none of Farmington’s rivers are covered by the state statute. As such, only the major water bodies that are subject to the New Hampshire Shoreland Protection Act. Major rivers and streams in Farmington include the Cocheco, Berry’s, and the Rattlesnake. Farmington’s Waterfront Protection Overlay District provides standards for the regulation of development within 250 feet of all water bodies in Farmington. It is important to note that a great deal of water quality monitoring activity has been conducted by volunteers.

Stream Water Quality

There are 2 permitted outfall facilities in Farmington. See Table 3-4 in Section 9 of this chapter for additional information. After the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1971, the federal and state government spent a substantial amount of money to upgrade municipal sewage treatment plants and other point sources of pollution during the 1970’s and 80’s. The NH Department of Environmental Services reports that the Cocheco River, Mad River, and Rattlesnake River are all Class B water bodies. Class B designation means that these resources are swimmable and fishable surface waters.

8.3 Floodplains

Floods are a natural and normal occurrence in an area of high rainfall. During normal stream flow, water is carried in a river channel. But in times of high runoff, water rises over the banks and flows onto the floodplain. Floods only become a problem when man competes with nature for use of the land.

Areas susceptible to flooding present obvious hazards to life and property, and the continued protection of these areas from development is an important responsibility. Farmington is somewhat unique in that a large area of former floodplain in the downtown is protected by a dike built in the late 1950s to protect the downtown from such catastrophic events as the 1936 flood. The town must take steps to ensure that the integrity of the dike is not compromised and that it will continue to protect the area of development that relies on the Army Corps Dike Downtown maintenance of the dike. The vegetated dike can be seen along the bottom portion of the picture that has been included on this page. Farmington should encourage uses of the floodplain that are

Natural Resources Chapter 3-16 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 least affected by and have the least affect on the floodplain. Such uses may include agriculture, recreational fields, and protected open space. Increases in the steepness of banks such as those created when dikes are constructed, result in "channelization", a characteristic destructive to the ability of floodplains to do their job: absorbing natural, periodic increases in stream flow. Increases in channelization will create greater demands on remaining floodplains both up and downstream to absorb those floodwaters with potentially damaging results.

According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Farmington, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there are many areas of Farmington within the 100-year floodplain. These floodplain areas are scattered throughout the community in association with Farmington’s surface water resources. A 100-year flood plain is an area that has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. Some areas with flood potential are shown on the floodplain maps as having incomplete data. These areas may be overlooked in applications for development with potentially unexpected results. See Map 8 for more detailed information related to Farmington’s floodplain areas.

8.4 Dams

In the state of New Hampshire there are over 4,400 dams registered with the Department of Environmental Services. Twenty-three of these are in Farmington. The most significant dams are the Berry’s River Dam and the Rattlesnake Brook Dam. The majority of dams in Farmington are related to hydroelectric operations, water supply, and recreation.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-17 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Table 3-3 Dams

NAME RIVER TYPE IMPOUNDMENT HEIGHT OWNER (Acres) (Feet) Tributary to the Cocheco River Dam Cocheco River Timber/Stone 9 GLM Inc. Cocheco River PSC Dam Cocheco River Timber/Stone 6 PSNH Ela River Dam Ela River Earth 6 PSNH Cocheco Dam I Cocheco River Earth 4 12 New Dam Mr. Wesley Cocheco Dam II Cocheco River Concrete 7.6 Rousseau Berry’s River Dam Berry’s River Earth 28 27.5 City of Rochester Tributary to Branch Berry River Berry’s River Concrete 6.4 7 City of Rochester Rattlesnake Brook Dam Rattlesnake Brook Stone/Earth 0.75 20 Ms. Julia Ley Coastal Materials Cocheco River Dam Cocheco River Inc. Branch Mad River Ms. Carmelia Dam Mad River Stone/Earth Ardario Dick Dame Brook Mr. Vincent Dam Dick Dame Brook Concrete Tabbone Ten Rod School Earth / Edward and Marsh Perennial Stream Concrete 15 5 Deborah Cantwell Victor’s Holding Corp. Dam Natural Swale Earth 2 11 Tilcon Maine Inc. Nubble Pond Nubble Pond Dam Brook Earth 12 8 Mr. David Urell William and Joyce Fire Pond Natural Swale Earth 0.57 10 King Tributary to the Recreation Pond Cocheco River Earth 1 6 Ms. Paula Kenyon Mr. George Bouchard Pond Springs Earth 0.25 5 Bouchard Cote Recreation Pond NA Earth 0.33 7.9 Mr. Denis F. Cote Rancourt Village Runoff Detention Pond Earth 0.17 5 Foreclosed Runoff Voith Paper Voith Paper Service Service Northeast Northeast Earth 0.26 4.8 Inc. Voith Paper Voith Paper Service Service Northeast Northeast Runoff Earth 0.19 15.3 Inc. Upper Whaleback Tributary to Pond Berry’s River Stone/Earth 11.7 10 City of Rochester Farmington School Farmington School Detention Pond I Runoff Earth 0.36 14 District

Natural Resources Chapter 3-18 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 8.5 Water Supply

A study is currently being conducted in the coastal watershed area by the State of New Hampshire (Department of Environmental Services, NH Geologic Survey (NHGS) and the NH Department of Environmental Services Coastal Program) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to provide southeastern New Hampshire communities with new tools and data needed to make informed decisions about water supply and use and to plan for future growth in their towns. The products from this study that will be available to Farmington include:

• Compilation of existing data on wells, surficial deposits, and aquifer systems.

• Development of a regional, long-term water-resources monitoring program.

• Collection of detailed water-use data, including information on withdrawals, returns, transfers and uses by different types of users in Farmington.

• Development of estimates of ground-water availability within Farmington.

• A ground-water flow simulation model will be tested on a portion of the study area.

• Surficial geology maps and data for the entire study area.

• Access to data developed for Farmington on historic water use and supply.

The proximity of the seacoast region in Southeastern New Hampshire to metropolitan Boston has led to a 36% population increase over the past 20 years. This population increase, and associated development, has been accompanied by an estimated 50% increase in the use of ground and surface-water resources for drinking, industrial, and other purposes during the same period. Ensuring the sustainability of water resources into the future will require a better understanding of the water storage and movement in surface- and ground-water systems within the region, and a thorough understanding of past, current, and future water demands. A report is expected in 2006.

Additional information on this process can be found at: http://webster.state.nh.us/coastal/Restoration/groundwater.htm http://nh.water.usgs.gov/CurrentProjects/seacoast/index.htm

Aquifers

A large aquifer system is found below the Cocheco River from the New Durham border to the Rochester Border. This is also the location of the most intense development in the community. The term transmissivity is used to categorize the ease with which water passes through a geologic material. Transmissivity quantifies the ability of an aquifer to transmit water, measured in cubic feet per day. According to the NH Department of Environmental Services, this aquifer system in Farmington is composed of three different degrees of potential water yield, or transmissivity:

Natural Resources Chapter 3-19 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 • Less than 2000 cubic feet per day • 2000 - 4000 cubic feet per day • 4000 – 8000 cubic feet per day

As areas above the aquifer are further developed, buildings and parking areas will prevent water from recharging the aquifer. The placement of underground storage tanks and other potential pollution sources within the aquifer area also threatens the quality of this resource for future drinking water.

The Town of Farmington has designated an aquifer protection overlay zone based on the “5 Day Pumping Test” report completed by D.L. Maher in October 1989, delineating the 180 Day Zone of Contribution. The overlay zone generally covers the well head protection areas, and does not relate to the entire area of the aquifer itself. Because this resource is vital to the drinking water supply, protection of the aquifer should continue.

Wells

Municipal water facilities serve much of Farmington’s population; however some businesses and many residents rely on drilled or dug wells for their water supply. Since 1984, every well drilled in New Hampshire must be reported to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). Of the 385 wells reported in the town of Farmington to NHDES, 317 were drilled as new wells and 50 of them were drilled as replacements for existing wells. It should be noted that according to the NHDES Water Division, the NHDES well database is known to be incomplete. The NHDES estimates that it contains only an estimated 80% of wells drilled after 1984, even though those who drill wells (individual citizens, contractors) are required to report their activity.

The wells in Farmington which were reported to NHDES range in depth from 12’ to 708’ with the vast majority drilled in bedrock. A bedrock well makes use of a bedrock aquifer. A well drilled into a bedrock aquifer will be constantly filled with water that flows through cracks. Eleven wells were drilled into a gravel aquifer which is more porous, and a well drilled into such an aquifer yields more water than one drilled into a bedrock aquifer.

There are several uses of wells in Farmington: domestic (serving one household); community (serving 25 or more persons); commercial or industrial, and agricultural. The majority of the wells in Farmington are domestic. There are 13 wells that are categorized as “test or exploration wells”, and there is one well that was drilled as a “small community water supply”. The Town of Farmington operates three wells in the Cocheco River area off of NH Route 11 for the public water supply of the community. There is a wellhead protection area around the municipal wells.

8.6 Land Use Implications

The water resources within Farmington are abundant. Deliberate steps must be taken if Farmington is to retain a healthy supply of potable water, healthy fisheries, recreation opportunities, and other benefits. Here are a few summary points to consider related to water resources in Farmington.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-20 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 1) There is a direct correlation between activity within the watershed and the quality of lakes and ponds that are fed by those watersheds. All of the activities taking place on land will eventually impact both surface and ground water. This refers to both quality and quantity of groundwater. Mismanagement in the watershed will adversely affect the water bodies down-slope and downstream.

2) Minimizing the amount of pollutants entering Farmington’s waters will help avoid expensive future expenditures to treat and clean these waters.

3) Minimizing impervious surfaces in groundwater recharge areas will preserve the volume of the local water supply being stored as groundwater and in surface water bodies.

8.7 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the water resources in Farmington and their land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Pursue easements for buffers along the Upper Cocheco River, Mad River, and Pokomoonshine.

2) Continue to implement the Waterfront Protection Overlay District to provide standards for the regulation of development within 250 feet of all water bodies in Farmington.

3) Consider the regional impact statute (NH RSA 36:54-58) when reviewing development proposals that may impact shared watersheds, and continue to work proactively with neighboring communities.

4) Continue to routinely monitor the quality of existing water resources in Farmington with volunteer assistance.

5) Improve the quality of stormwater being discharged into surface waters through treatment, or stormwater detention.

6) Promote the use of permeable surfaces, and other Low Impact Development (LID) techniques that promote infiltration in the site plan review process.

9.0 POINT AND NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION

Within every watershed, the uses of the land and of the water have the potential to impact water quality. Water pollution can occur from two major sources: point and non-point. Point source pollution is one that can be linked to a specific pollutant or discharge point that can be identified and physically located. Non-point sources are more difficult to document, trace, or identify since there is generally not a specific point of discharge. The NH Department of Environmental Services should be contacted relative to the current status of individual sites.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-21 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 The need to protect waterbodies from the danger of accelerated eutrophication and other forms of pollution was recognized by the New Hampshire Legislature in 1991 with the passage of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (RSA 483-B). Eutrophication is the natural, gradual nutrification, oxygen deprivation, and warming of a waterbody that changes the biological make- up of the waterbody. Eutrophication can be dramatically accelerated by pollution leading to a dying lake or pond having algal blooms and other problems. The final implementation of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act was put into effect on July 1, 1994. This act creates a protected shoreline for public waters, but states:

"Municipalities may adopt land use control ordinances relative to all protected shorelands which are more stringent than the minimum standards contained in [the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act]..." RSA 483-B:8, I.

"Municipalities are encouraged to adopt land use control ordinances for shorelands of waterbodies and watercourses other than public waters." RSA 483-B:8, II.

9.1 Point Sources, Ground Water

In New Hampshire, NH DES regulates industrial and municipal discharges and privately-owned wastewater management and wastewater treatment facilities which may have a potential impact on water quality due to a direct discharge to groundwater. A groundwater discharge permit is required for such activity. Currently there are no permitted groundwater discharges in Farmington.

9.2 Point Sources, Surface Water

A pipe discharging waste into a stream is an example of a point pollution source. Since the Clean Water Act of 1971, most discharges have to be treated prior to discharge and all discharges require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. DES issues NPDES permits after review and approval. There are two NPDES permits issued in Farmington. Table 3-4 lists the currently permitted outfalls.

Table 3-4 Permitted Outfall Facilities

Identification # Name Waterbody Status Type 0100854 Farmington Wastewater Cocheco Active Major Treatment Facility 0001112 Tilcon Maine, Inc. Rattlesnake/Cocheco Inactive - Source: http://www.des.state.nh.us/gis/onestop/

9.3 Potential Non-Point Pollution Sources

General and specific land use practices that are widespread throughout the study area can impact water quality. Some potential sources are the result of temporary or short-term land uses that require disturbing the soil, such as logging, construction, road maintenance, or agriculture operations. Others, such as stormwater runoff may be short in duration, but are continuous in nature. Non-point sources are more difficult to quantify than point sources because they impact

Natural Resources Chapter 3-22 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 water quality through unmonitored, intermittent, or incremental contamination and their impacts may be felt only over a long period of time. Other sources include waste disposal facilities (septic systems, landfills, junkyards, etc.), highway maintenance (sand, salt, and snow dumping), and hazardous waste. A large number of the potential sources in Farmington are sand and gravel mines in close proximity to the Cocheco River and over the known stratified drift aquifer.

Buffer strips along ponds and streams intercept and store surface runoff, allowing it to infiltrate rather than continue off site as runoff. This can reduce impacts from a variety of pollutants including phosphorus, sediment, pathogens, nitrates, and pesticides. A buffer’s capacity to tie up pollutants depends on its width, Vegetation type, slope, and soil type. Studies have shown that the ability to evaluate these factors is usually beyond the ability of communities without relying on expensive studies. Instead, authorities have determined that a realistic rule of thumb is to assume that the wider a buffer is, the more removal of pollutants occurs. A 100-foot buffer is recommended for infiltration.

9.4 Land Use Implications

Point and non-point pollution sources have an adverse effect on the community . Their presence threatens both the immediate and long term health of the community. Here are a few summary points to consider related to pollution in Farmington.

1) Pollution contaminates soils and impacts water quality in the community. This results in damage to the environment and the need to engage in expensive treatment processes.

2) The value of Farmington’s natural resources is directly linked to their health and the absence of pollutants.

3) There is a direct correlation between impervious surfaces and increased non-point source pollution. Reducing impervious surfaces will reduce runoff rates and increase filtering.

9.5 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the existing and potential threat from pollution sources in Farmington and their land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion.

1) Adopt impervious surface limits in the site plan review regulations, and encourage the use of pervious structures for areas like overflow parking lots.

2) Reduce the required road widths for new development.

3) Promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) regulations that help manage non-point pollution and stormwater drainage.

4) Promote Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint pollutants from industrial, commercial and residential developments.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-23 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

5) Require maintenance plans for industrial, commercial and residential developments.

6) Apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the maintenance of dirt roads, and for areas adjacent to all roadways.

7) Continue to monitor and document all underground storage tanks in Farmington.

10.0 FOREST & AGRICULTURE LAND USE

10.1 History of Agricultural Lands in New Hampshire

In 1880, 64% of New Hampshire’s land was in agriculture. Today less than 15% remains in farming. Traditional agricultural activity in New Hampshire is at its lowest level in history. New Hampshire ranks 49 out of 50 in the level of agricultural production in the U.S. One reason for this is that land suitable for agriculture is also excellent for development. Agricultural land is gently sloping, open, and scenic. The agricultural land that remains undeveloped adds a special rural character to the town while at the same time providing habitat for local wildlife. According to the New Hampshire Department of Agricultural Land on Poor Farm Road Agriculture the face of agricultural operations in New Hampshire is changing quickly. Niche markets including specialty crops and herds, customized farm products, and small scale operations are redefining agriculture

In short, traditional agriculture and agricultural land uses in New Hampshire and Strafford County have declined substantially over the years. Land once used by small, non-mechanized farms has reverted back to forest land or has been developed. Miles of stonewalls in mature forest stands are testimony to an agricultural heritage in New Hampshire that has been lost over the past several decades. Farmington has certainly been part of that trend.

10.2 Existing Agricultural Land Use in Farmington

Traditional agricultural land use in Farmington today is still evident. Farmington has a few large contiguous tracts of important farmland soils scattered throughout the town. Meaderboro Road, between the Rochester City Line and Poor Farm Road, is the largest tract. This area is currently an active farming area with some minor residential development along the road. Other large tracts of prime farmland soils are along the Governor’s Road, directly north of downtown on NH Route 153, and near Hornetown Road. There are a number of other small but possibly significant pockets throughout the town, mostly West of NH Route 11.

Some of the agricultural land in Farmington is open fields that may be “idle”, meaning kept open by “brush hogging” or mowing every year or two, but not producing a crop. A variety of niche

Natural Resources Chapter 3-24 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 market agricultural operations exists for Farmington. These are small scale specialty operations producing and selling things like honey, berries, and other products. There is an opportunity to encourage growth in this small, but critical land use as a technique for preserving agricultural lands and the community’s character.

The western portion of Farmington still has a rich agricultural character, but increasing residential activity is putting pressure on the existing farm operations. Many of the remaining farm families have been working the land in Farmington for several generations, and continue to promote a land ethic.

10.3 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s agricultural resources and activities have an effect on land use decisions and impact the character of the community. Here are a few summary points to consider related to agriculture in Farmington .

1) Preserving the possibility of farming in the future adds to the sustainability and diversity of the community. If agricultural resources are converted to residential and business uses they will not be viable options for producing goods locally.

2) There is an economic benefit when produce and products are generated locally, and the land does not require the high level of town services that development demands.

3) Agricultural lands add to the visual and habitat diversity of the landscape, and contribute to the character of the community. This landscape creates a “sense of place” that is specific to Farmington and cannot be recreated.

4) Recent events in Farmington indicate increasing willingness on the part of the farming community to sell and to a lesser degree donate easements that would protect farmlands.

10.4 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the status of agriculture in Farmington and the associated land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion.

1) Pursue protection of the limited agricultural land that remains through outright purchase, purchase of easements/development rights, municipal bonding, and donations.

2) Require open space developments in areas involving agricultural land. Concentrate all the development on the non-agricultural land areas.

3) Make all of Farmington’s land use regulations “farm friendly” and support non-traditional agricultural operations (small scale, seasonal, organic, specialty or “niche markets”).

Natural Resources Chapter 3-25 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 10.5 Forest Lands

According to the Society of NH Forests (SPNHF) report New Hampshire’s Vanishing Forests (2001) 35 tree farms exist in Farmington with a total acreage of 3,852 or 16.5% of the town. Forestland has many uses. Timber harvesting is the most obvious use, but other uses and functions include recreation, wildlife habitat, water quality protection, open space, scenic enhancement, etc. These are all important uses for the people of Farmington, both from a quality of life and economic standpoint.

10.6 Forest Planning

From a planning perspective, woodlands are not just a source of wood products, and tax revenue. The forest industry also provides many area jobs. Woodlands also play an important role in providing areas for outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, and scenic enjoyment. They play a role in the water quality of Farmington’s ponds and streams. All of these uses are sustainable, and each can co-exist. Timber harvesting, while having dramatic visual impacts in some cases, is rather short-term. However, subdividing large woodland parcels into small lots for development can have a long term, nearly irreversible impact.

Considerable care should be taken during both commercial timber cuts and cuts to create open space for development to ensure the conservation of soils by mitigating erosion. Because large forested tracts are another aspect of the rural character of the community, visible clear cuts, either for commercial harvests or for development, should be carefully avoided or buffered. "Viewsheds," the views available to residents and tourists while driving, hiking, etc, and the impact of large clearcut areas on a viewshed are an important consideration when the stated goal of the community is to maintain the rural character. The maintenance of important forested and agricultural views should be encouraged, by encouraging selective cuts, or smaller clearcuts with active replanting.

New Hampshire’s Vanishing Forests (2001) found that while New Hampshire remains predominately forested, the amount of forest cover will decline to 80% statewide within the next 20 years, and of that, less and less will be committed to long term forest management in large tracts. Additionally, most landowners no longer rank timber production as their main reason for owning the land. Only 10% of the landowners include timber production as the primary reason, with aesthetic enjoyment now more than 50% of the landowners' reason for owning the land.

It was found that parcels of land 500 acres or more are the most common for long term forest management due to economies of scale. With regard to the short-term impacts of logging, the town has a built in mechanism to monitor logging operations – the notice of ‘Intent to Cut.’ Once an ‘Intent to Cut’ is filed, it is reviewed to determine if the logging operation is going to impact sensitive or critical natural resource areas, such as wetlands, deer yards, fragile biotic communities, etc. Landowners and foresters could be educated to the need to carry out logging operations in a manner sensitive to important natural resources. It could also help to identify logging operations that are planned on areas used for recreation such as paths and trails. Steps could then be taken to work with landowners and foresters to temporarily close or re-route trails during the logging operations.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-26 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 10.7 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s forest resources have an effect on land use decisions and impact the character of the community. Here are a few summary points to consider related to forest lands in Farmington.

1) Forest resources provide habitat, erosion control, water filtering, improved air quality, and temperature regulation. These resources also pay their own way in terms of town services because of the little they demand.

2) Responsible harvesting of forest resources supports the local economy, and provides access to local forest products. The working landscape contributes to the character of the community.

3) Clearcutting and disregard of BMPs can result in erosion and non-point source pollution that creates problems for abutters and the community.

10.8 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the status of forestry in Farmington and the associated land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion.

1) Farmington should consider having a licensed forester inspect all logging jobs to insure compliance with wetland and erosion and sediment control regulations. The forester could also inspect the sites relative to the amount of timber harvested. This may increase the amount of tax revenue from logging in Farmington, and provide an opportunity to educate loggers on Best Management Practices (BMPs) to use on site.

2) The minimum lot size in zones with valuable forest resources should be examined. Subdivision of land into small units makes logging difficult.

11.0 CONSERVATION LANDS

Conservation areas are those lands protected for the foreseeable future through outright preservation by governmental or conservation organizations, or through conservation easements. Farmington has nine properties that have been set aside as conservation land. Table 3-5 shows the acreage amounts for these lands which cover 5.1% of the total land area in Farmington.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-27 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Table 3-5 Farmington Conservation Lands

Property Management Acres Blue Job Wildlife Management Area NH Fish and Game 589.8 NH Department of Resources and Economic Blue Job State Forest Development 116.6 NH Department of Resources and Economic Blue Job State Forest Development 283.6 Wellhead Protection Area Town of Farmington 17.5 Mad River NH Fish and Game 61.3 Mad River Tract II Town of Farmington 4.3 Abbotts Grant - Town Forest Town of Farmington 50 Reservoir Pond City of Rochester 45 Whaleback Pond City of Rochester 27.3 Total 1195.4 Percent of Total Land Area in Farmington 5.1% Source: GRANIT - http://granitweb.sr.unh.edu/clv_phase1/viewer.jsp

The information for conservation lands in Farmington shown in Table 3-5 and Map 8 most likely does not include all protected land in Farmington. Determining specific lands in Farmington that are protected is not an easy task, since information on easements, etc. is not necessarily readily accessible. It is also important to note that ownership by a community or the state does not guarantee that these properties will be permanently protected unless a conservation easement of some kind is also placed on the property.

11.1 Moose Mountains Regional Greenways

Farmington is very fortunate to be a member of Moose Mountains Regional Greenways. Working with five neighboring communities (Brookfield, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, and Wakefield) to connect existing conservation lands to form corridors or "greenways" throughout the region is a monumental step toward conservation of the region’s most valuable natural resources. More information on Moose Mountains Regional Greenways can be found at: http://www.moosemountaingreenway.org/

11.2 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s conservation lands have an effect on land use decisions and impact the character of the community. Here are a few summary points to consider related to conservation lands in Farmington .

1) Conservation lands provide habitat, recreational opportunities, and protect critical natural resources. These resources also pay their own way in terms of Town services.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-28 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 2) Conservation lands contribute to Farmington’s character as a community, and support its quality of life.

11.3 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the conservation lands in Farmington and the associated land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion.

1) Increase efforts to secure conservation easements on undeveloped land with significant natural resources.

2) Pursue conservation easements, or other forms of protection, on lands adjacent to permanently protected parcels in order to preserve contiguous corridors of undeveloped land.

3) Partner with other conservation based organizations, such as Moose Mountains Regional Greenways, working in Farmington and the region to increase funds, access a wider audience, prioritize parcels for protection, and pursue land protection efforts that will benefit the community and the region.

4) Bond money for conservation purchases.

5) Identify town owned (and other) lands that would be suitable for the expansion of community facilities and place easements on town lands which are considered more environmentally sensitive.

12.0 WILDLIFE RESOURCES

12.1 Habitat

The diverse habitats of Farmington include fields, wetlands, upland hardwood and softwood forest. Farmington lies within the “Southern New England Coastal Plain and Hills Section” bioregion and is mostly in the “Gulf of Maine Coastal Plain Subsection” of that bioregion. (Only the western corner of Farmington is in the “Sebago-Ossipee Hills and Plain Subsection” of the bioregion).

Wildlife communities are defined as "groups of species that occur together in a particular habitat." Plant species can constitute a community of their own, but also provide a habitat for an animal community. Different habitats are necessary for different animal species, and even one species will often require multiple habitats throughout its life cycle. Since the well-being of any one animal species is dependent upon an exponential network of other animal and/or plant species, the loss of one habitat can affect an animal species that does not necessarily live in that habitat.

The ability of wildlife to roam through their natural range within continuous forest cover is very important. Habitat fragmentation can cut off breeding, foraging, and hunting areas, disrupting animals’ life cycles. Large developments that remove or fragment wildlife habitat should be

Natural Resources Chapter 3-29 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 carefully reviewed and the impacts on habitat should be minimized to the degree possible. Additionally, when humans move into an animals range, the incidences of human/animal interaction tends to increase and can be dangerous. Animal/automobile accidents occur and curious animals may become dangerous pests around homes. Riparian areas are extremely important as wildlife habitat. Approximately 90% of New England species use riparian areas for nesting, feeding, and transportation.

12.2 Species

The better known mammal species include moose, white-tailed deer, black bear, rabbit, squirrels, woodchucks, eastern coyote, beaver, muskrats, raccoons, otter, mink, bats, possum, red fox, fisher, and bobcat. Amphibians such as the spotted salamander, newts, toads, tree frogs, bullfrogs, and the morning spring peeper are typically found at the water’s edge. Reptiles include box turtles, and 11 species of snakes including the garter, milk snake, and black racer.

Nearly 200 species of birds can be found in their various habitats in the area including hawks, 25 species of warblers, many different species of finches, owls, and flycatchers. Many different types of waterfowl reside in the area including Canada geese, mallards, blacks, wood ducks, and mergansers. Blue heron can often be seen in streams and wetland areas. Newcomers include the turkey vulture and the wild turkey.

12.3 Endangered/Threatened Plants and Animals

Not all of New Hampshire’s wildlife is thriving. The NH Fish and Game Department maintains a list of endangered or threatened animal species in New Hampshire. Migratory birds including the bald and golden eagle and osprey do pass over the area from time to time. According to the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, a variety of rare plants, vertebrates, and natural communities may be found in Farmington. Though their exact locations are generally not revealed for obvious reasons, their basic locations are available through the Natural Heritage Inventory. The only confirmed species that has been spotted in Farmington in the last 20 years is the Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) which has been reported on six occasions.

12.4 Hunting

The northeast is an excellent area for recreational hunting and Farmington’s community of recreational hunters is vibrant. Farmington’s natural resources currently support big game, such as deer and moose, and smaller game such as beaver, mink, hare, grouse and woodcock. Some areas within Farmington have been identified as deer wintering areas. These are areas that were mapped by the NH Fish and Game Department using aerial photography, and are identified as those areas having a thick evergreen cover. The mapping of these wintering areas or “deer yards” as they are sometimes called, is over 15 years old and needs updating to account for logging, development, and regrowth. While not on a major flyway for migratory birds, Farmington does offer suitable habitat for both short-term migratory waterfowl, and for resident birds.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-30 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 12.5 Fishery

The water bodies in Farmington also contain a wide range of fish species. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department keeps records on predominant fish species found in the largest ponds and brooks organized by town. According to the Fisheries Biologist at the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Farmington’s fish population includes the following: Baxter Lake Rivers & Streams -Large Mouth Bass -Blacknose Dace -Small Mouth Bass -Brook Trout -Pickerel -Brown Trout -Bullhead -Fallfish -Golden Shiner Rochester Reservoir -Lakechub -Large Mouth Bass -Longnose Dace -Small Mouth Bass -Longnose Sucker -Pickerel -Rainbow Trout -Bullhead -Slimy Sculpin -Yellow Perch -Common Sunfish -White Sucker -American Eel -Golden Shiner -Common Shiner

12.6 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s wildlife resources have an effect on land use decisions and are impacted by them as well. Here are a few summary points to consider related to wildlife resources in Farmington .

1) Habitat is easily fragmented by new development. This disrupts the landscape and impacts wildlife movement and survival.

2) Wildlife resources are critical to many recreational activities that support open space conservation (i.e. hunting, fishing, and bird watching).

12.7 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the status of wildlife in Farmington and the associated land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion

1) Protect areas that are known to support or have the potential to support important wildlife.

2) Concentrate habitat protection efforts on preserving corridors between habitats and protected open space, particularly along waterways, to allow wildlife to avoid conflict with humans while maintaining the ability to gain access to food, shelter, water and breeding areas.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-31 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3) Provide opportunities for the public to learn about local wildlife and potentially view it.

13.0 SUMMARY

The primary focus of this Chapter is to identify the natural resources in Farmington, recognize the role they play in giving the town its character, and decide what strategies would best maintain that character. All of the community's resources are interconnected, and any change to one can have a significant impact on the others. As the population increases, demands on many of these resources will increase, possibly to the point of threatening the quality and quantity of the resource. The goal of this Chapter is to help develop a balance between development and resource protection within Farmington that will guide future sustainable development of the community.

Natural Resources Chapter 3-32 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Chapter 4 Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends

Chapter 4 Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Population Trends 2.1 200 Census Undercounts Farmington 2.2 Population Growth Trends 3.0 Employment Trends 3.1 Employment Profile 3.2 Loss of Manufacturing Jobs 3.3 Economic Growth Sectors in New England 4.0 Housing Trends 4.1 Housing Occupancy 4.2 Housing Types 4.3 Recent Building Permit Activity 5.0 Tax Base Considerations 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Cost of Community Services 5.3 Tax Rate & Assessed Value 5.4 School Costs 5.5 Impact Fees 5.6 Residential Values – ‘Breaking Even’ on Residential Development 6.0 Socio-Economic Characteristics 6.1 Household Income 6.2 Educational Attainment 6.3 Changing Family Structure 6.4 School Generation by Unit Size 7.0 Population and Housing Projections 8.0 Summary

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section of the Master Plan presents trends in Farmington’s demographic, economic, and housing characteristics. The analysis of these trends is important because it sets the stage for the evaluation of current conditions, and for projections of future economic activity addressed within the Master Plan. Farmington’s economy and the growth pressures imposed on it do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, Farmington functions within a regional economic setting. This economic analysis reports Farmington’s trends and characteristics within two market settings:

• A primary market, consisting of Farmington and its immediately surrounding communities (Barrington, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, Rochester and Strafford); and

• A secondary market area consisting of Strafford County.

The significance of this distinction is that communities lying within Farmington’s primary market area have a higher degree of interaction with Farmington in terms of commuting and housing market interaction. It is necessary to also consider the secondary market area because communities lying outside the primary market area also have an impact on Farmington, even though the forces are somewhat less strong and somewhat less frequently felt.

Farmington Market Area

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 2.0 POPULATION TRENDS

2.1 2000 Census Undercounts Farmington

It appears likely that the US Census Figure 4.1 undercounted Farmington’s Corrected Farmington Population Trends population in 2000. This conclusion is based on the following 8,000 Source: Census information: Source: AER Corrected Estimates 7,000 6,802 6,303 6,000 5,739 5,774 • The Census shows a modest Closer to trend. 5,000 4,630 rise of only 77 total housing Less Likely... 4,000 3,588 units in Farmington, yet 3,000 almost 250 new housing 2,000 units were added during the 1,000 1990s, according to building 0

permit data setting forth new 0 0 0 0 3 7 8 9 0 0 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 units authorized by building PopulationAdjusted.xls permit.

• Farmington has consistently captured 6-7 percent of the county’s population growth over the prior 20 years, but the Census population estimate shows it accommodating essentially none of the county’s population growth during the 1990s.

• The New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning forecasts that Farmington will continue to capture 6 percent of the county’s population growth during the 2000-2010 period.

• The NH Office of Energy and Planning’s staff has confirmed that the Census undercounted population in some New Hampshire communities and based on a review of Farmington Census data, we believe that Farmington is one of the undercounted towns.

According to the US Census, Farmington’s population in the year 2000 stood at 5,774 (Figure 4.1). Census figures indicate that Farmington experienced relatively little population growth during the decade of the 1990s, in contrast to consistent growth of 1,000 – 1,100 in both the 1970s and 1980s.

Inasmuch as the year 2000 is an important data benchmark for this analysis, the Census population Downtown Residential Unit counts for Farmington were revised as part of this Master Plan analysis based on analysis of actual new

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 housing units added to the town during the 1990 to 2000 decade. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Revision of US Census Counts Census AER Difference Total Housing Units, 1990 2,260 2,260 0 Plus: New Units Permitted 1990-2000 77 238 161 Less: Estimated Units Lost -25 -25 Year 2000 Units 2,337 2,473 136

Less: Seasonal Units 82 82 0 Year-Round Units 2,255 2,391 136 Year-Round % Occupied 98% 98% 0% Occupied Units 2 ,146 2,343 197 Population per Occupied Unit 2.69 2.69 0 Population 5,774 6,303 529 PopulationAdjusted.xls

Fundamentally, the only change made in the Census count was to update the count of housing units to reflect permitted activity between 1990 and 2000. Maintaining the same occupancy rate for year-round housing and the same population per housing unit as revealed in the Census counts (these figures are more likely to be correct than the overall count of housing units), results in an estimated year 2000 population of 6,303 versus the Census estimate of 5,774. This estimate more accurately reflects Farmington’s year 2000 population.

The 2003 estimate for Farmington is derived by adding the population growth experienced in Farmington (according to the NH Office of Energy and Planning’s 2003 population estimates) to the 2000 population (revised as in Table 4.2).

In addition to counting population, the Census also sets forth population and housing characteristics including rent levels, income, and housing type. This data is based on sampling statistics, meaning that the results are derived from a cross-section of Farmington's total population. The revisions to correct the Census undercounting result in the Farmington population trends depicted throughout the Master Plan.

Unless otherwise noted, any statistics or analyses related to demographics from 2000 refer to the revised estimates or to the data which is based on sampling statistics, and therefore assumed accurate.

These revised Census figures have been contrasted to the primary market (surrounding communities) and the town’s secondary market (Strafford County) in Table 4.3 below and in Table A at the end of this Chapter.

2.2 Population Growth Trends

All of the areas considered in this Table portray slower population growth during the 1990s than in previous decades. The combined total for Farmington and its surrounding communities, for example, shows growth during the decade of the 1990s to total 5,089, in contrast to growth of 11,734 during the prior decade. A similar slowdown in population growth was experienced in

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Strafford County and statewide during the 1990s, as compared to the 1970s and the 1980s. This slower population growth is attributable to the 1990-1993 recession from which the state did not fully recover until 1998.

Figure 4.3 Population Trends (Revised Population Count)

2000 F'ton's F'ton's Area 1970 F'ton's Share 1980 F'ton's Share 1990 F'ton's Share (revis'd) Share 2003 (est.) Share Farmington 3,588 4,630 5,739 6,303 6,802 Surrounding Towns 27,228 13% 36,612 13% 48,346 12% 53,435 12% 56,928 12% Strafford County 70,431 5% 85,408 5% 104,233 6% 112,233 6% 117,841 6% Portsmouth PMSA* 134,648 3% 158,220 3% 186,880 3% 199,323 3% 203500 3% State of NH 737,681 0% 920,610 1% 1,109,252 1% 1,235,560 1% 1,291,573 1%

1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2003 Area 1970-1980 % chng 1980-1990 % chng 1990-2000 % chng 2000-2003 % chng Farmington 1,042 29% 1,109 24% 564 10% 499 8% Surrounding Towns 9,384 34% 11,734 32% 5,089 11% 3,493 7% Strafford County 14,977 21% 18,825 22% 8,000 8% 5,608 5% Portsmouth PMSA 23,572 18% 28,660 18% 12,443 7% 4,177 2% State of NH 182,929 25% 188,642 20% 126,308 11% 56,013 5% * PMSA stands for Primary Metropolityan Statistical Area. It is comprised of communities that are viewed by the US Census Bureau as having strong to somewhat strong economic linkages. GrowthAnalysis.xls

One way to look at Farmington’s growth is as a “share of” the growth experienced by the county or the surrounding towns, or the state or the Portsmouth PMSA1. For example, Farmington’s share of the surrounding communities’ population growth remained in the 12 to 13 percent range since 1970 and its share of the County’s population growth was in the 5 to 6 percent range. Although this would imply some stability in growth when compared to these other groups of towns, this type of analysis does not compare “our share” to a meaningful indicator like the capacity of our infrastructure to accommodate growth, or our ability as taxpayers to support new growth compared to these other towns.

The state links a community’s capacity to accommodate new growth with two things: its rate of growth compared to that of “surrounding communities” and whether the town has sufficient infrastructure to service it. Only when New Hampshire towns can show that they are experiencing more growth than their neighbors, and that there is not infrastructure to service it can they create ordinances that control rates of growth. In all cases, however, there must be a plan (such as a Capital Improvement Plan) in place to build the new infrastructure that will be required to service new growth no matter what it costs Farmington’s taxpayers.In Farmington’s case, inadequate infrastructure to service growth is compounded both by our inability to pay for the expansion of the infrastructure we need (such as new classrooms) and to pay for the operation of that new infrastructure (such as teachers salaries and teaching materials). For this reason, “share of growth” analysis must include comparison to the towns’ capacities to pay for the purchase and operation of new infrastructure.

1 PMSA stands for Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-5 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Farmington citizens overwhelmingly support the adoption of rate-of-growth controls when Farmington is growing faster than our neighbors. But the Planning Board has a limited ability to deliver such ordinances when infrastructure expansion happens too quickly or when impact fees are used to pay for “growth enabling” infrastructure. Such a situation compounds problems for taxpayers when they are asked to pay for the operation of new infrastructure (impact fees cannot be used to pay for operations). Figure 4.4 Farmington Growth Rate by Decade Farmington Growth Rate by Decade However (in contrast to “share of 35% growth” analysis) there is another 29% 30% way to look at Farmington’s growth 26% 25% 24% th w

in the absence of other indicators; by o

r 20% G examining how fast our population is 15% changing. Figure 4.4 shows te of 10% Ra 10%

Farmington’s rate of growth each 5% decade. 0% 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 GrowthAnalysis.xls As described above, growth must be compared to surrounding towns. Farmington’s population growth rate during the 1990s was 10 percent which might appear to be essentially the same as that of the surrounding communities (11%), and a bit faster than that experienced in Strafford County (8%). See the bottom panel of the table in Figure 4.3. However, it is important in this case to make a distinction between “population increases” as a count of residents, and the rate at which those increases are occurring. Farmington’s population count has increased during every decade since the 1970’s, however, the speed at which that change is occurring is now faster than it has ever been (since 1980). See Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5 Farmington's "Growth" vs Farmington's "Change in Growth Rate"

Population Counts Change in Growth Rate Expon. (Population Counts)

Time Period over which Growth Rates are Measured 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 9,000 100% This chart compares Farmingtons population growth 8,000 (in numbers of residents) to how fast those numbers are 90% increasing. Between 1980 and 2000, our increases in population (Growth Rate) were happening slower 80%

s) 7,000 t than they are now. In other words, our n

e Growth Rate was decreasing every 70% 6,000 decade, and now it is increasing.

resid 60%

of 5,000

nt 50% 4,000 (cou 40% Growth Rate on 3,000 lati 30% u p

o 2,000 1970-1980, 29% P 20% 1980-1990, 24% 2000-2010, 26%

1,000 10% 1990-2000, 10% 0 0% 1970 1980 1990 2000 (revis'd) 2010 (proj.) Year of Population Count GrowthAnalysis.xls

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-6 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Figure 4.6 shows Figure 4.6 - Growth RatesGrow thby Rates Decade by Deca de Farmington’s growth rates Farmington has grown faster GrowthAnalysis.xls 40% than 'Strafford County' and compared to four other Portsmouth PMSA since 1970 comparators. (The black 35% Farmington becomes faster dashed line is the same as growing than 'Surrounding that shown in both Figure 4.5 Towns' and "State of NH' 30% and 4.4) This chart shows Farmington Growth Rate = 26% that sometime between 2000 and 2010 Farmington became 25% faster growing than all four owth

Gr 20% f comparators. o te a R When we look at how much 15% faster or slower than the Farmington surrounding communities 10% Surrounding Towns Strafford County Farmington is growing the Portsmouth PMSA 5% trends become even clearer. State of NH For example, the table in 0% Figure 4.7 shows that 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 Farmington’s rate of growth in the 1990’s was 28% faster than Strafford County’s and 7% slower than the surrounding towns. The 2003 projections indicate that Farmington’s rate of growth will be significantly faster, changing from 7% slower, to 21% faster (than surrounding towns) and from 28% faster to 58% faster (than Strafford County).

Figure 4.7 Share of Growth: Farmington's Rate of Growth Compared to Other Towns ( t

70% 300% his scal The chart indicates how much faster or Surrounding Towns 278% slower Farmington is growing than are 60% 58% e

Strafford County f

other groups of towns. 250% o r

Portsmouth PMSA P

50% o

State of NH r t . s

For example, during the periods 1970 m

200% ou

to 1980 Farmington grew 37% faster by.. 40% th r 37% e

than Strafford County did. During the PMS w

o 30% next decade, we grew only 9% faster. 28%

150% A But since then, we have been growing & er/Sl 20% 21% S t

faster and faster, and if the trend at ast e o between 2000 and 2003 is any F 100%

10% f N on indication, by 2010, we will have grown t 9% 75% H o 58% faster than the county did. ing 66% n

m 0% l 48% 50% y )

Far 32% -7% -10% 17% 17% -16% 0% Farmington grew -20% -14% faster than these -25% -30% -50% groups when the 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2003 percentage is positive, Surrounding Towns -16% -25% -7% 21% and slower when it is Strafford County 37% 9% 28% 58% negative. Portsmouth PMSA 66% 32% 48% 278% State of NH 17% 17% -14% 75%

GrowthAnalysis.xls ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-7 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

The results indicate that Farmington experienced a surge in population growth between 2000 and 2003. The NH Office of Energy and Planning estimates that between 2000 and 2003 Farmington’s population increased by 8 percent, nearly matching the 10 percent population growth sustained in the town during the entire decade of the 1990s. However, as noted above, Farmington’s rate of growth was significantly faster than the county as a whole between 1990 and 2000 (28% faster), a rate that since 2000 has grown dramatically faster than that of both the county (58%) and surrounding towns (21%). See Figure 4.7.

New housing construction rates in Farmington during the past several years are consistent with these increases in population growth (see Section 4.0).

We attribute this rising share of growth to several factors:

• Farmington had a generally accommodative stance regarding residential development: it did not impose high barriers to new residential development.

• In the past, Farmington had a reputation as an undesirable community. This reputation is fading, bringing more development pressures on the community.

• Communities closer to major Seacoast employment centers (especially Portsmouth, Rye, Hampton, Dover, Durham) either found that much of the land within their borders that was suitable for residential development was already developed or those communities adopted strong controls on the amount and pace of residential development.

In the absence of changes in Farmington’s development controls, these trends toward accelerating growth in Farmington are likely to continue.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-8 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.0 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

3.1 Employment Profile

Regional employment growth (measured in terms of the number of jobs within an area) is the driving force behind the demand for new housing units and for population growth. The relationship between employment growth and population/housing activity in Farmington is driven by the regional economy in interaction with the overall desirability of a community as a place to live when compared to other towns within commuting distance of job growth centers. Census figures indicated that in the year 2000, 80 percent of Farmington’s residents commuted to jobs outside of Farmington.

Nonetheless, the employment base within the town is important to the community because there is a preference for working close to home and the community’s employers are a vital source of nonresidential tax base. Figure 4.8 Farmington Private Employment

2,000 1,800 The total number of jobs in Farmington 1,600 peaked in 1996 at just over 1,800 (Figure 1,400 4.8).2 Since then employment losses 1,200 occurred primarily as a result of the 1,000 reduction in jobs at Collins and Aikman, the 800 town’s largest manufacturing employer. In 600 400 2002 the total number of jobs in Farmington

200 was nearly the same as in 1991. 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

3.2 Loss of Manufacturing Jobs A marked shift in employment has occurred Figure 4.9Fa rFarmingtonmington Emplo Employmentyment Trends Trends (Jobs In Farmington) within the town. The town has experienced 2,000 a loss of manufacturing jobs since the early 1990’s (Figure 4.9). This loss of 1,500 manufacturing employment has been offset by increases in non-manufacturing 1,000 employment, primarily in the retail trade and services sectors. The replacement of 500 manufacturing jobs with non-manufacturing jobs is not ideal, but is consistent with - national economic trends. A downside of Manufacturing Emp. Private and Government Emp. this trend is that non-manufacturing jobs pay 1993 2000 2001 PopulationAdjusted.xls

2 The source of wage and employment data cited in this chapter is the NH Employment Security Commission. ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-9 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 lower wages, and offer fewer benefits, than the manufacturing jobs they are replacing.

As to the overall employment situation, according to the 2000 Census there were a total of 2,900 workers living in Farmington, while the town’s employers provided 1,600 jobs (including government jobs). This means that the town is a net exporter of workers—that the town’s job base is smaller than its workforce. The table in Figure 4.10 illustrates the employment trends in Farmington and Strafford County. The same trend of gains in non-manufacturing employment offsetting manufacturing employment losses occurred in Strafford County, with the same effect—a generally less prosperous job base. Rising government employment in Farmington includes education workers.

Between 1993 and 2002, Strafford County shed a total of 3,913 manufacturing jobs, a 40 percent loss—as compared to a 20 percent decline state-wide. During this timeframe, Cabletron, a major manufacturing employer in Rochester, ceased operations, and smaller manufacturing firms either closed or reduced their employment levels. As was the case in Farmington, these manufacturing employment losses were offset by employment gains in the government and non-manufacturing sectors. As a result, the county was able to sustain an overall employment growth during this period of 4,635 jobs or 12 percent. Unfortunately, the employment gains were primarily in the retail and service sectors, which pay lower wages than the manufacturing jobs lost. During this timeframe Farmington’s share of the county’s total employment declined from 4.2 percent to 3.7 percent.

Figure 4.10 Employment Trends: Farmington and Strafford County Percent Change Change 1993 2001 2002 1993-02 1993-02 Farmington Manufacturing Emp. 1,123 969 872 (251) -22% Non-Manufacturing Emp. 275 388 436 161 59% Total Private Employment 1,398 1,357 1,308 (90) -6% Government Employment 226 279 299 73 32% Private and Government Emp. 1,624 1,636 1,607 (17) -1%

Strafford county Manufacturing Emp. 9,756 7,326 5,843 (3,913) -40% Non-Manufacturing Emp. 20,345 27,495 27,841 7,496 37% Total Private Employment 30,101 34,821 33,684 3,583 12% Government Employment 8,138 8,824 9,190 1,052 13% Private and Government Emp. 38,239 43,645 42,874 4,635 12%

Farmington Share of County 4.2% 3.7% 3.7% PopulationAdjusted.xls The loss of manufacturing jobs in Farmington is disturbing because there is only one major manufacturing employer remaining. Consistent with national trends, this manufacturer has faced increased pressure from international competition.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-10 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.3 Economic Growth Sectors in New England

The “creative economy” is an emerging growth sector, which can help offset manufacturing employment losses. As noted by the New England Creative Economy Council:3

Efforts in the business, foundation and art/craft/artisan communities are gaining momentum with conferences, endorsements and partnerships between the nonprofit and business communities.

Creative economy business efforts in New Hampshire abound, through work at organizations like New Hampshire Business Committee for the Arts, and with creative community efforts supported by banks such as Ocean National Bank. In a joint effort with Vermont, the Upper Valley Community Foundation is working on an Arts Initiative and exploring options for a future conference on the creative economy in the upper valley.

Artist and artisan-led efforts like New Hampshire Furniture Masters Association – a thriving consortium of woodworkers in New Hampshire that works to both preserve furniture making traditions and promote commerce by linking artisans to customers – exemplify success within New Hampshire's creative industries segment of the creative economy.

According to the US Census there were no Farmington residents earning their primary wage from the arts industries, but there is a major concentration of arts-related employment in Portsmouth, which could provide a basis for expansion in Farmington as the cost of space and housing in Portsmouth moves beyond the reach of most artists.

Home-based businesses can also offset non-manufacturing employment losses, without a major disruption to the economy. According to the US Census there were 55 Farmington residents that worked at home.

Non profit enterprises are a growing part of the economy. In the year 2000, the Census reports there were 137 Farmington residents employed by non profit agencies.

An analysis of wage data shows that Figure 4.11 Average Weekly Wage Comparison Average Weekly Wages Farmington and Strafford County wages in Farmington are, on $800 average, comparable to those in the $700 $648 $630 County. In the year 2000 $600 Farmington’s average weekly wage $500 $474 stood at $648, in contrast to a $410 $400 county-wide figure of $630 (Figure $300 4.11). This data reflects the jobs $200 located in Farmington, irrespective of whether they are held by residents $100 $0 of Farmington or commuters from 1991 2000 other communities. Farmington Strafford County

3 http://www.creativeeconomy.org/cne/nh.html ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-11 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

4.0 HOUSING TRENDS

A community’s housing inventory is a critical element in its Master Plan. Housing represents the largest component of developed land in a community. It is also the largest component of the community’s tax base, and the dominant element in the growth pressures a community experiences. Between the 1990 and 2000 Census, Farmington experienced a net increase of 213 housing units4. This represents a 9 percent increase in the town’s housing inventory during the decade. Residential Structure

4.1 Housing Occupancy

The total number of occupied units in Figure 4.12 Housing Inventory Trends Farmington grew at a 2000 Change % Change faster rate (15%) than the 1990 (revised) 1990-2000* 1990-2000* total number of housing All Occupied units 2,032 2,343 311 15.3% units (Figure 4.12). This 1Owner 1,431 1,700 269 18.8% is because units that were 2 Renter 601 643 42 7.0% vacant at the beginning of All Vacant Units 228 130 -98 -43.0% 1Vacant 28 13 -15 -53.6% the decade became 2For Sale 74 35 -39 -52.7% occupied during the 3 Seasonal 65 82 17 26.2% decade. This has Year round units 2,195 2,391 196 8.9% significant implications Total Units 2,260 2,473 213 9.4% for future planning Vacancy Rate 5% -5% -100.0% because occupied housing HousingTrends.xls units generate the demand for public services including schools.

Figure 4.13 on the following page contrasts housing trends in Farmington with those in surrounding communities and in the County. Farmington’s share of the surrounding towns’ total housing units stood at 11 percent in both 1990 and 2000, reflecting the fact that the housing inventory in Farmington was growing at about the same pace as that of surrounding towns during the decade. Similarly, Farmington maintained a constant share of 5 percent of the total housing units in the county.

4 Based on Master Plan revised population count. ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-12 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Figure 4.13 Housing 1990 Housing 2000 Farmington as a % Farmington as a % Housing Change Fton Surr Cnty of Surr of Cnty Fton Surr Cnty of Surr of Cnty Comparison All Occupied units 2,032 17,880 37,744 11% 5% 2,343 20,406 42,581 11% 6% 1990 – 2000 1Owner 1,431 13,332 24,453 11% 6% 1,700 15,013 27,458 11% 6% Farmington, 2Renter 13% 5% 12% 4% Strafford Cty, 601 4,548 13,291 643 5,393 15,123 Surrounding All Vacant Units 228 3,012 4,643 8% 5% 130 2,308 2,958 6% 4% Communities 1Vacant 28 392 657 7% 4% 13 129 202 10% 6% 2For Sale 74 621 1,572 12% 5% 35 181 370 19% 9% 3Seasonal 65 1,637 1,794 4% 4% 82 1,669 1,823 5% 4% Year round units 2,195 19,255 40,593 11% 5% 2,391 21,045 43,716 11% 5% Total Units 2,260 20,892 42,387 11% 5% 2,473 22,714 45,539 11% 5% Vacancy Rate 5% 5% 5% 100% 100% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Change 1990-2000 % Change 1990-2000 Comparitive Change Farmington as a % Ratio Surrounding Surrounding Fton Surr Cnty of Surr of Cnty F'ton Towns County Towns County All Occupied units 311 2,526 4,837 12% 6% 15.3% 14.1% 12.8% 1.08 1.19 1Owner 269 1,681 3,005 16% 9% 18.8% 12.6% 12.3% 1.49 1.53 2Renter 42 845 1,832 5% 2% 7.0% 18.6% 13.8% 0.38 0.51 All Vacant Units -98 -704 -1,685 14% 6% -43.0% -23.4% -36.3% 1.84 1.18 1Vacant -15 -263 -455 6% 3% -53.6% -67.1% -69.3% 0.80 0.77 2For Sale -39 -440 -1,202 9% 3% -52.7% -70.9% -76.5% 0.74 0.69 3Seasonal 17 32 29 53% 59% 26.2% 2.0% 1.6% 13.38 16.18 Note: Vacancy Year round units 196 1,790 3,123 11% 6% 8.9% 9.3% 7.7% 0.96 1.16 Rates based on year-round units. Total Units 213 1,822 3,152 12% 7% 9.4% 8.7% 7.4% 1.08 1.27 Vacancy Rate -5% -4% -4% 125% 125% -100.0% -80.0% -80.0% 1.25 1.25 ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-13 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 It is important to compare the change in our housing occupancy to that of the county’s and surrounding towns’. Figure 4.14 shows Farmington’s change in vacant units, occupied units and total units with the county and the surrounding towns. It is clear that Farmington is filling vacant housing units more quickly than either comparator (43% decrease in vacant units, versus 36% for the county, and 23% for surrounding towns). Often the result of improving housing markets, and filling vacant units can have a positive effect on the quality of housing stock and the local economy, it also represents additional costs to support new residents. This growth in population - and its attendant costs - are not reflected by simply counting new building permits because the filling of existing vacant units does not require a building permit (Change in building permits for new housing units is addressed in Section 4.3).

Figure 4.14 % Change in Housing: 1990-2000

20.0% 15.3% 14.1% 12.8% 9.4% 8.7% 10.0% 7.4%

0.0% F'ton Surrounding County Towns -10.0% ange h

-20.0% % C Total Units -23.4% All Occupied units All Vacant Units -30.0% Longer "Vacant Units" bars indicate a decrease in vacant units usually due to growth in permanent population, and subsequent increase in services -36.3% -40.0% required. Farmington has a greater increase in permanent population due to occupancy of vacant -43.0% units than either Surrounding Towns or County. -50.0% HousingTrendsChart.xls

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-14 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Housing Occupancy Percentile Comparison 1990-2000* Figure 4.15 shows how Figure 4.15 Housing Occupancy Comparison 1990-2000 2.00 much faster our occupied Farmington LOSING vacant units 1.84 84% faster than surrounding towns and vacant housing is 1.80 changing compared to the Farmington GAINING Farmington GAINING housing 1.60 housing units 8% faster units 27% faster than the county changes in the county and than surrounding towns surrounding towns. 1.40 1.27 1.19 1.18 1.20 1.08 1.08

tile 1.00

4.2 Housing Types Percen 0.80

Figure 4.16 shows the 0.60 housing inventory for 0.40 Total Units All Occupied units Farmington and Strafford 0.20 County by unit type. All Vacant Units Within Farmington, the 0.00 Surrounding Towns County most pronounced growth HousingTrendsChart.xl occurred within the mobile home category, which experienced a 25 percent increase in the inventory during the decade. This is in contrast to a loss of mobile home units that occurred countywide during this same period. Farmington has an over-concentration of mobile homes compared to the county. In the year 2000, one out of five housing units (20%) in Farmington was a mobile home, according to Census figures. In contrast, 11 percent of the county’s inventory consisted of mobile homes. The comparable statewide figure was 7 percent. Figure 4.16 Housing Inventory Farmington’s share of total occupied Farmington & Strafford County units, renter-occupied units, owner- % occupied units as compared to the Change Change Farmington 1990 2000 aer 1990-00 1990-00 surrounding towns and that of Strafford Total Units 2,260 2,473 213 9% Single Family Units 1,324 1,437 113 9% County, was essentially identical to its SF Owner Occ. 1,102 1,196 94 9% respective share of total units. For SF Renter Occ. 109 118 9 9% Multi-family Units 544 545 1 0% example, Farmington had 11 percent of MF Owner Occ. 5 2 5 2 0 0% MF Renter Occ. 412 493 81 20% the surrounding communities’ total Mobile Home & Other 392 491 99 25% housing units, 11 percent of its owner- Mobile Home % of Total 17% 20% % occupied units and 12 percent of its Change Change renter-occupied units. As contrasted to Strafford County 1990 2000 1990-00 1990-00 Total Units 42,387 45,539 3,152 7% the county, Farmington had a slightly Single Family Units 22,073 25,095 3,022 14% SF Owner Occ. 18,197 21,147 2,950 16% lower share of renter-occupied units than SF Renter Occ. 1,721 2,003 282 16% Multi-family Units 14,883 15,355 472 3% owner-occupied units, a factor that is MF Owner Occ. 2,062 2,275 213 10% probably attributable to the presence of MF Renter Occ. 10,983 12,482 1,499 14% Mobile Home & Other 5,431 5,089 -342 -6% the University of New Hampshire, which Mobile Home % of Total 13% 11% generates strong rental demand in Durham and Dover. That student-generated demand is not felt in Farmington. Also, taken as a whole, the county is somewhat more urban than the subset of Farmington’s surrounding communities.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-15 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 4.3 Recent Building Permit Activity

New housing units authorized by building permits provide an indication of growth trends in more detail than Census figures. This building permit data excludes items such as building additions and remodeling and reports data exclusively on new housing units authorized by building permit. While not all units authorized by building permit are eventually built, past analysis by the NH Office of Energy and Planning indicates that the overwhelming majority of units authorized by building permit are completed.

Figure 4.17 shows that during the early 1990s, Farmington was generally authorizing 20 or fewer units per year. Beginning in 1997 the pace of new permit authorization increased and it peaked in the year 2003 with 109 units authorized by permit, the highest level in over a decade.

Part of this faster pace of development is attributable to overall housing construction trends in Strafford County. The pace of new housing construction increased in the late 1990s as the inventory of the early 1990s was absorbed. But while building permits in the county have declined since 2000, in Farmington, the increase in number of permits per year continues to climb.

Figure 4.17 Trend of New Housing Units by Permit in Farmington Comparison to Strafford County & Surrounding Communities 120 1200 109 permits

100 1000 Farmington Strafford County Surrounding Communities - -

80 800 rmits rmits 868 e e permits ly P P ngton ing ing On rmi d d n l l i i o u u

60 600 Fa gt B B n w w 642

permits r tha Farmin of Ne of Ne

t t 40 400 Othe Coun Coun

20 200

0 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 CHART-ShareBuildingPermits.xls

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-16 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Figure 4.18 shows Farmington’s share of the new housing units authorized by building permit in Strafford County. It shows that Farmington has been adding housing units at an increasing pace relative to the county—that it was absorbing a higher percentage of the county’s building permit activity in the late 1990s and the early part of this decade than in the early 1990s. Figure 4.18 Farmington Share of Housing Permits Comparison to Strafford County & Surrounding Communities 18% 14%

Surrounding Communities 16% County 12% '

s 14% tie

10% ni s ' u (%) (%) ty are are m

n s s m t t 12% u m 's Sh 's Sh Co rmi rmi

Co

on 8% on rd g gt gt in ffo

10% ra nd rmin rmin a a ou F F Building Pe Building Pe of St rr

u 6% S f 8% o

4% 6%

4% 2%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 CHART-ShareBuildingPermits.xls Ideally, to improve Farmington’s economic health, more new jobs would come to Farmington than people. By comparing actual population growth to the growth of jobs we can get a sense of whether we are in fact heading in that direction. Figure 4.10 shows that Farmington’s share of employment in Strafford County dropped from 4.2% in 1993 to 3.7% in 2002 while Figure 4.18 reveals that Farmington’s share of the county’s housing permit activity rose from 5% to 8% over the same time period. That means Farmington’s share of the county’s building permits was more than twice its share of the county’s employment by 2002. Farmington’s share of building permits then spiked to 13% in 2003. In conclusion, Farmington’s pace of recent residential development is outpacing that of the county and the town is absorbing a growing share of the county’s growth even as it loses jobs (1% decline in Farmington jobs to the county’s 12% growth).

Figure 4.18 also demonstrates that this same observation holds true when examining Farmington’s share of building permit activity within the surrounding communities. By the year 2000, the line on this chart shows the trend is decidedly upward, meaning that Farmington is absorbing a growing share of growth relative to surrounding communities. Farmington had 12

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-17 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 percent of the population of the surrounding communities. In contrast, it has been accommodating 14-17 percent of the recent building permit activity in the surrounding communities, indicating it has been attracting a disproportionately high share of the market area’s residential activity.

5.0 TAX BASE CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The amount of property tax paid by the community as a whole is based on only two factors:

1. How large the municipal budget is (our total spending, including funding future capital improvements and a spending reserve)

2. How much income from other sources the community receives (school subsidies, grants, etc).

The resulting annual cost must be divided between property owners (and indirectly, all renters) in proportion to the value of their properties. A “tax rate” (described as a dollar amount per thousand dollars of property value) is set by the state in an amount that will pay for the total spending that the voters decided on when they voted for the municipal budget at town meeting. This “property tax” does not consider the ability of households and businesses to actually pay that tax. Figure 4.19 Cost of Community Service Studies SummarMye:dians Cost of Commu101 Studiesnity Se (NHrvices Tow Studiesns Similar) 5.2 Cost of Community Services Median of 101 Studies $1.40 Median Cost per Dollar Raised Surplus Different types of property will not $1.20 Costs from secondary impacts not assessed. only pay different amounts based $1.15 on their assessed value, but the $1.00 costs required to provide public $0.80 services to them will also be somewhat dependent on the type of $0.60 property, how it is developed, and $0.40 0.65 0.73 how it is used. Generally, $0.35 business, industrial and open space $0.20 $0.27 properties generate more income $0.00 than they cost. Residential Residential Combined Commercial & Farm/Forest Open Land GrowthStudies.xls Industrial properties tend to cost more than Source: American Farmland Trust they generate (Figure 4.19). The mix of net-gain properties to net-loss properties is referred to as the “diversity of the tax base”. Ideally, the net-gain properties would predominate so that the taxes required from residents would be as low as possible.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-18 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Figure 4.20 DirectDirect Cost/Benefit Cost/Benefi of tCommunity of Community Service Ser Stuvicesdies Results of 101 StudiesResul Nattisonw fromide 10 (s1ev Stuend fromies N NH)ationwide (seven from NH)

$1.50

e) NH nu

s Towns st eve o

R $1.00 f C t i o $ r an e h t p re in $0.50 Ga mo t ne ays $ P . . .

.. $0.00 I I I I . J J T T T T X T Y A A E A A A Y A H Y Y H D Y D H A H N H A H N H H H I W RI R RI NJ NJ NJ WI W , ID , R , UT WI UT UT V CT V CT CT CT V N NY , MI NY N NY NY NY NY N N N N M M M NH NH NH NH NH O OH OH OH OH MA OH OH O M M O M O , N , , T MD MD M , N , M M , , KY , , , , C , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , O y, , O , O , , , , , , MA , MA , OH , , MA , M , , , MA , , , n, , MN ys n ue t t, C , W t r r t, N y p t, MA ty y, n y y y, y, ll th y ip n d n k y, y, y, r ll g, a e ip ty p p ip y y p p tt, M p d p e ch, o t t t i m s e i i ip ip i or, ip in e n ty t t e n m ro, n nn, t u to rd h tte rr ty on ok o o n on, an, r on, h t ki n ge, h e on n i a eld, t h f ou Dix h h wn h t hel, el h o unt n n n u a iel o r s Gi n lto mo e n i o kl p wi i shi s c s t et h u a ugh nc i unt unt unt d f h en s sh unt unt unt br t s s s f s g ck o o ham, Pa u o b e n y gt tfo u hoo n ll r w n n r m Du Du Pe n t e t o m o r hf mp oun i

s hea n n n n Lym r n n o v e s n ingt Dover, o a i El s a u Bo w a pk c e l i wnship, Ex smo t w He B o w ekm Co C rt Fis G t e r d H Be w wnship, wnship, wnship, wnship, w w He w t w wnshi e wnshi wnshi Fa e C een i Co o Coun eer Cou V o Co Am nde o t Po o D m o r m e n - C even Mont Fr L Rea m e o o o o o bor o o

o Fr k s l Cou l Cou ia r Li e We n a dd C t C Ag d Co l Dee r D k H S o n W nde i B er in Co T h y No s T a iam i Tow T R ke Co ah h o on C e o on Co t a c T To T T T To To T n R Gr Po g t ll s a l ll T l T L d to t r c Far Mi io K Fa epe at l

b ri l ld n n e ny n Town F rr ttl ar p a l e a Ut s e i g e l H f wn d -$0.50 l o hea e o del Township, o o dis nd To Ceci t gust i r Wi am am L n C o m n Sevi Sc eny T eek T s Ca d th h C den r i a o s Sou W v u h t I Ca i Ska Ca m r a Car l ds e e x eho e e aba a Gall s o We e d A in r r M r l h t Flat e e e B w t C a r ngh F d r L i ingh m Ho legh St $ chm S Fr d Ma d F B en C re r r ew ck Al Ri No d t Mi u e Be Shaler S B p ppe Mai

mo U s s -$1.s 00 st Lo o t C ne

$ ( -$1.50 Source: American Farmland Trust Residential Farm/Forest Open Land Combined Commercial & Industrial GrowthStudiesSummary.xls

Figure 4.20 shows the results of 101 studies conducted across the U.S. (seven in NH) as net gain or net loss per dollar of tax revenue raised (results summarized in Figure 4.19.

Property taxes generally cover two-thirds of local government spending in New Hampshire. This spending can be divided into spending for services (including capital planning for things like new equipment), and spending for investments targeted at improving the local economy (for example, for economic development projects, education or open space). Some of this spending can be controlled by voters (we could call it “discretionary” spending), but some is required for the minimal operation of town government.

Some examples of how the costs necessary to the provision of public services are linked to land use:

• Encouraging residential development in outlying areas of the town often results in new expenditures as more road per resident must be maintained for homes that are spread out, and services that are less cost-effective for the community must be provided (such as a fire-substation or new school busses).

• Allowing excessively high residential density in downtown areas in an effort to place growth where it is least expensive to service can also backfire if it creates new incentives for developers to be active in Farmington, creating new growth – and costs – that we otherwise would not have received.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-19 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 • The lack of sewer service along Spring Street has required densely grouped homes to have septic systems in close proximity to the Ela and Cocheco Rivers. Failures in those septic systems are impacting water quality in the rivers which represents future costs.

• Dumping at Davidson Rubber badly polluted the Pokomoonshine Brook and a large area downstream, causing the closing of one municipal well. Additional dumping of toxics at the Cardinal Landfill have caused new costs for clean-up and monitoring.

A healthy tax base will have a balance of different property types, and properties that are known to generate more tax than they require in services can help to balance out land use that may cost the community to support (such as most residential development). But in some of these examples, secondary impacts carry hidden costs that were never evaluated. This potential for new, secondary costs that are often hidden – but sometimes predictable – can be identified through “secondary impact analysis”, mandatory in some communities as a part of some applications for land use change.

Every new cost to the community (such as those above) creates pressure for voters to reject measures to raise funds for “discretionary” spending such as that for investments targeted at actually improving the local economy (as opposed to tax spending just to service growth). This means that there is a potential two-fold advantage in making land use and infrastructure expansion decisions with a view to the cost of primary and secondary impacts:

1. The cost to support those measures can be avoided when voters have a clear understanding of the cost-benefit relationship.

2. Encouraging primarily the types of growth that are not as costly to service reserves taxpayers’ capacity to spend public dollars on measures that can actually improve the economy instead of paying for the ever-ongoing support of growth.

There are many sources for information about the link between land use, expansion of roads and infrastructure, and the cost of community services.

Route 16 Corridor Protection Study - December, 1998 which has an excellent land use section, and is available in Farmington’s Planning & Community Development Office.

MANAGING GROWTH IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: CHANGES & CHALLENGES Executive Summary - December 2000 (New Hampshire Office of State Planning & The Growth Management Advisory Committee) available for download at http://www.nh.gov/oep/resourcelibrary/referencelibrary/g/growthmanagement/documents/GMReport.pdf

Community Choices - Thinking Through Land Conservation, Development, and Property Taxes in Massachusetts available from the Trust for Public Lands at http://www.tpl.org/download_comm_choices.cfm.

A report describing smart growth produced by the NH Office of Energy & Planning entitled Achieving Smart Growth in New Hampshire – April 2003 is available on CD from the Farmington Planning & Community Development Office.

The following sections examine how Farmington’s land uses contribute to the amount of property taxes we pay, and to the quality of our infrastructure and local economy.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-20 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

5.3 Tax Rate & Assessed Value

The analysis in this section compares Farmington to other communities at specific points in time, and does not examine trends. Additional study that looks at how Farmington’s situation is changing in comparison to other communities would be a valuable addition to this section.

Figure 4.21 2003 Full Value Tax Rate $25.00 Figure 4.21 shows that

Farmington’s 2003 tax rate $20.00 is not exceptionally high in ) d

relation to other Strafford n a $15.00 County communities.5 s ou h t

$

Tax Rate $10.00 er

(p

$5.00

$0.00 N M R H N D N R N E Y D M O A E T O R O E O E R R A T H T R T O T V T L U O H S L E B G R E O I F L O G F R IN U W M S D IN D F U D H S IN D A A D M C L ID R M R R O R L R T A E M A S W F R M O B E O R N S Figure 4.22 Residential Assessed Value as a % of Total Assessed Value , 2002

120%

97% 100% 95% 90% 87% 87% 89% Residential properties account for 84% 86% 86% 77% 77% 77 percent of Farmington’s tax 80% 74% 71% 72% base—the same as the average 60% prevailing county-wide (Figure 4.22). 40%

20%

0%

R H N N N M N M D E ER T O O EE O A RD O V R T VE. T L T O URY T ST A IL E FOR O Y RH L RHA F DO W ING M NG SF DB D S M RI DU IN A D CHE R L M DU RA R R UNT L MI W RO BA ST ME FA CO RO NE SO

5“Full Value Tax Rate” is the local tax rate expressed as a percent of the full market value of taxable property in a community. The NH Dept. of Revenue Administration computes this annually. ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-21 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Because a disproportionate share of Farmington’s residential tax Figure 4.23 Equalized Tax Base Per Capita, 2003 base consists of mobile homes, the assessed value per residential unit is lower than that of $140,000 surrounding communities. This $120,000 is confirmed in Figure 4.23 which divides the total equalized $100,000 value by the community’s $80,000 population (“equalized value” is $60,000 arrived at by adjusting the assessed value to so that it more $40,000 closely reflects actual market $20,000 value and is based on a ratio that $-

N M R N D N R N E Y D M varies from town to town and O A TH R E E R R A T H TE R TO O TO V TO L U O H S L F O B F G R E O I LE G R IN U W M S D IN D F U D H S IN D A A from year to year). Farmington’s M C ID R M R D R O R LL R T E M A S W FA R M O B E O R N tax base by this measure is the S lowest among all communities in Strafford County.

5.4 School Costs

It does not mean, however, that Farmington’s residential units generate less demand for public services than units in other Strafford County communities. One of the major variables influencing the cost to serve residential units (and town costs, in general) is the number of school age children per occupied housing unit. As seen in Figure 4.24, Farmington averages 0.55 school age children per occupied housing unit, one of the highest school age generation rates in the county.

Figure 4.24 School Age Population Per Household, 2000 Dover In the graph at left, data points outside the grey Madbury Durham ring have greater than the county average of 0.66 school age children per household. Farmington

0. 55 Strafford Rochester has 27% more than the county average. 0.64 0.32 0.40 0.43 Pop'n 6-17 Strafford Co. Total Pop'n aged per Lee SomersworthMunicipality Households 6 to 17 yrs Household 0.64 0.43 Barrington 2,756 1,475 0.54 0. 00 Dover 11,573 3,718 0.32 Durham 2,882 1,139 0.40 0.57 0.43 Middleton County AveragFearmington 2,146 1,183 0.55 0.55 Lee 1,466 933 0.64 0.44 Madbury 534 350 0.66 Middleton 514 292 0.57 Milton 1,456 759 0.52 Farmington Rollinsford 0.54 0.52 New Durham 819 429 0.52 0.52 Rochester 11,434 4,873 0.43 Rollinsford 1,033 450 0.44 Barrington Milton Somersworth 4,687 2,012 0.43 New Durham Strafford 1,281 817 0.64 Source: 2000 Census County Totals 42,581 18,430 0.43 SchoolAge_by_Household.xls

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-22 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 In addition, (all other things being equal) the proportion of children with unfunded special needs can create per-student costs above those paid by other communities. Farmington spent 24.9% of the school-funding dollar on special needs while the state average was 17.4%6 (see Chapter Six, Table 6-11).

Farmington must fund services by relying on a comparatively low-valued residential tax base. The costs of those services, however, are set in the broader regional market. For example, Farmington must offer regionally competitive salaries to attract quality teachers. Yet, its tax base (equalized for assessment differences) is lower per capita than in any other Stafford County community. As a result, Farmington faces a dilemma: either (1) keep its tax rate competitively low, but fund services at a lower level; or (2) fund more services, with a higher than typical tax rate. The choice is more painful for Farmington because it is, by most measures, a moderate income community, as is discussed in the following section of this report.

5-18 NH School Generation By Year Built and Bedrooms Figure 4.19 NH School Generation By Year

1.40 1.30 Analysis of NH school generation based

1.20 on unpublished Census data reveals that Units Built 1995 -2000 New Hampshire’s newer housing units 1.00 Units Built Before 1995 0.89 generate an average of 0.7 school children per unit (Figure 4.19). There is 0.80 0.70 0.65 0.63 variation from community to 0.60 0.48 community based on school

0.40 expenditures, funding sources, and 0.28 0.24 housing types. 0.20 0.12 0.05

- 1 Bedroom or 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 or More Total Less Be dr oom s

For example, a unit-by-unit tally of school Figure 4.20 Case Study of School enrollment in 3,400 housing units built between Generation by Unit Type 1998 and 2004 in Bedford, Hudson, Lebanon 0.7 (Bedford, Hudson, Lebanon and Rochester) 0.6 and Rochester, (Figure 4.20) showed that it 0.55 Un

r 0.5 e 0.42

condominium units generate only 0.12 enrolled p

nt 0.4 e 0.33 children per unit and single family homes m l 0.3 generate 0.55. (When condos are configured as rol En

ic 0.2 detached homes, or when bedrooms per unit bl 0.12 increase, there are more enrolled children per Pu 0.1 7 0 , household than the averages imply). y l es ms l s i mil t mes u e i p A ni n l: Ho e Fa a t le omi ngl All Ty To i obi S ond Commu M CHART-PublicSchoolEnrollment.xls C 6 2003, NH Department of Education 7 Housing and School Enrollment in New Hampshire: An Expanded View, New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority, May 2005 ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-23 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 5.5 Impact Fees

One way that many communities address funding challenges is to levy impact fees for new development. Impact Fees are allowed by state law and authorized in Farmington by the Farmington Zoning Ordinance, although none have been implemented to date. Under Impact Fee Ordinances, developers pay fees that “…help meet the needs occasioned by that development for the construction or improvement of capital facilities owned or operated by the municipality” (RSA 674:21,V) which usually seems like a great idea to voters and volunteer planners.

But it isn’t that simple. There are many pros and cons to impact fees that must be considered before attempting to implement this particular strategy. Some studies related to impact fee implementation have been conducted (See Impact Fee Development for NH Communities Prepared by the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission - July, 1999). Some considerations regarding impact fees:

1. Impact Fee programs are often complex to administrate, requiring additional staff, and fund accounting commitments that continue for years after the development has been completed.

2. Impact fees must be spent within six years or returned to the developer that paid them. Because communities must spend the money or lose it, additional tax dollars are often used to make up the difference between what was provided by the impact fee and the actual cost of the infrastructure to which it would be applied. In an attempt to meet that deadline, new infrastructure may be created before it is needed, and tax dollars may be spent that otherwise would not have been – whether taxpayers can afford it or not.

3. Recreational facilities may – but public open space may not – be paid for with Impact Fees

4. Impact fees may not ever be used to defray operational costs – only for infrastructure development. This means that the new costs – more teachers for the new classrooms, new wastewater operators for the larger plant, new driv ers for the new plow-trucks required for the new roads – all of these ongoing new operating costs that may not have existed before the infrastructure was built will have to be borne by taxpayers – forever.

5. Impact Fees may not ever be used to correct past infrastructure deficiencies. This means that Impact Fees which are being collected (with tax dollars often used to match them) often primarily go to creating new capacity for yet more new growth.

6. There must be a “rational nexus” or clear relationship between the development and new costs caused by that development. In other words, only that portion of new infrastructure that will be required as a result of the new development can be paid for with the fees from that development. This narrows the field of expenditure significantly depending on how the “rational nexus” is determined.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-24 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 7. Creating new capacity for growth has its own down-side in that growth management techniques (like the annual caps on building permits which are supported by 82% of respondents to Master Plan Surveys) can only be allowed when: a) there is more growth in the town than elsewhere in the market area and b) there is not sufficient infrastructure to service that growth.

Impact fees, when used to create infrastructure that increases our capacity to accept even more growth (such as wastewater plants, schools, or road systems) can actually handicap our ability to control rates of growth. An alternative would be to use impact fees only for infrastructure that could never be growth limiting (such as recreational facilities or sidewalks).

5.6 Residential Values – ‘Breaking Even’ on Residential Development

Analysis comparing 2004 tax rates with NH communities’ cost to service each household has shown that, in general, new single family homes in most communities would have to be valued at $250,000-$300,000 to generate enough revenue to “break even”. Homes valued at less than that amount would, on average, cost each taxpayer more to support. Homes valued at more than that amount would, on average, create a net gain for taxpayers causing a relative reduction in property taxes.

In Farmington’s case, this estimate is borne out only when assuming that Farmington receives the same level of education subsidy as the rest of the state ($201,000 if 46% of education comes from property tax)8. However, due to the high education subsidies Farmington actually does receive (relative to the state average) Farmington’s break-even values are considerably lower ($158,000 since only 22% of education comes from property tax)7. See Figure 4.21. Figure 4.21 Coarse Estimate of Residential Assessment Required to “Break-even”

Farmington Now 2004 School Budget The percentage of school revenue Farmington Like 2004 School Budget The state-wide average from local property taxes in percentage of school revenue $ 10,734,781 $ 10,734,781 (receiver town) Farmington from 2004 is applied to Other NH Towns from local property taxes from Farmington's school budget (22%) 2004 is applied to Farmington's school budget (46%) % frm % frm Res'l Tax Municipal School Budget (from = cost per household Res'l Tax Municipal School Budget (from = cost per household times budget plus prop tax) times budget plus prop tax) # of households # of households

0.77 $ 7 ,261,286 plus $ 2,361,651.82 0.77 $ 7,261,286 plus $ 4,937,999.26 = $2,688.56 = $3,408.36 2756 2756

This block estimates based This block estimates based on highly subsidized cost per household = Break-even house value on the average amount of cost per household = Break-even house value education costs - Only 22% mil-rate/1000 (rounded to nearest $1K) school budgets statewide mil-rate/1000 (rounded to nearest $1K) of the school budget came that came from local from local property taxes in $ 2,688.56 property taxes in 2004 $ 3,40 8.36 = = 2004 0.01697 $158,000.00 (46%) 0.01697 $201,000.00 Source: AER estimates of % of revenue from residential taxation, www.measuredprogress.org, NH Dept of Revenue Administration Breakeven of houses03.xls

But Farmington’s average residential value is already increasing dramatically. Using a conservative estimation method, Farmington’s 2000 average residential value was $59,4009. Four years later, it was $132,60010.

8 2004 figures from NHDRA, NHOEP, Farmington Town Report 9 Calculated from 2000 Town Report and AER estimates (see Ch. 4) 10 Calculated from 2004 Town Report, AER estimates, NHOEP ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-25 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Figure 4.22 Average Housing Unit Assessment as a Percentage of ‘Break-Even’ Value 2004 Farmington Receiving Greater-than-Average Education Subsidies 2004

2000 (Break-even $158,000)

(Break-even $201,000) (Break-even $55,000) $132,600 84% of break-even $132,600 $59,400 66% 108% of break-even of break-even

Average Farmington Receiving Education Subsidies Like Other New Hampshire Towns Household Value Breakeven of Houses03.xls

At first glance, the lower break-even value and increasing residential unit averages might be encouraging, but actual comparison of break-even values to the average value of housing units has shown that Farmington’s situation is getting worse. In 2000, our average residential value was 108% of break-even value, and in 2004, it went down to only 84%. If Farmington was “like other towns” and receiving education subsidies equal to the state average (much lower than those we have historically received) our ratio of average residential value to break-even value decreases yet further to 66%11. (See Figure 4.22; the proportion of revenue from non-residential properties which offsets municipal and school costs is assumed constant for the period 2000 to 2004)

11 2004 figures from NHDRA, NHOEP, Farmington Town Report ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-26 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 The analysis shown in Figure 4.23 shows that Farmington appears to be rapidly approaching state average education subsidy as Farmington’s share paid from its own local property taxes has more than doubled (a 134% increase) while the state average amount paid from local property tax has only increased by 27%12. Should this trend continue (and the community should hope it will, as that would indicate improving community health and prosperity) then the following will have to happen: 1. our average residential values will have to get much higher so that we can afford our share, and/or 2. more revenue will need to be generated by non-residential (i.e. low-cost-to-service) development and/or 3. all municipal costs will have to be dramatically controlled.

90.0 84.5 Comparison of Local Taxes Paid by Average NH Town 84.7 to 80.0 Local Taxes Paid in Farmington for School Funding 70.0

% Paid by Farmington 60.0 % Paid by Other Communities (avg) l Tax ca 50.0 46.0 Before State 43.4 Property Tax 40.4 41.0 40.0 36.3 Costs from Lo

% of 30.0 29.0 29.3 After 26.5 State Property Tax 22.0 20.0

10.0 Figure 4.23 9.4 10.5 6.3

0.0 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

12 From State Department of Education figures since state property taxes were instituted in 2000 ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-27 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 6.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Communities tend to have distinct socio-economic characteristics. These characteristics arise from a variety of forces including:

• The town’s economic history—in Farmington’s case as a rural, agricultural, trade and manufacturing center. • Regional forces—in Farmington’s case its location on the edge of the Portsmouth-Dover- Rochester metropolitan area. • Transportation—in Farmington’s case, its principal traffic corridor, Route 11which links destinations to the east and west. • The housing inventory—in Farmington’s case, a predominance of moderate income, single family housing with a particular concentration of mobile homes. • Town preferences—the choices the town makes regarding growth policies, the level of public services provided, and the extent to which Farmington adheres to its policies set forth in its Master Plan.

6.1 Household Income

The socioeconomic data in this section of the report is drawn from the US Census.

Farmington is predominantly a moderate income community. Its average household income is about 9 percent lower than that of Strafford County, and about 17 percent below the state average (Figure 4.24).

Figure 4.24 Median Household Income, 1999 $60,000

$48,702 $49,467 $50,000 17% $44,803 $40,971 9% $40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0 Farmington Strafford County Portsmouth- State of New Rochester PMSA Hampshire PopulationAdjusted.xl

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-28 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Farmington’s lower average income is not attributable to Figure 4.25 Income Below Poverty Level 1989 vs. 1999 12.00% a predominance of people 10.30% Proportion below poverty similar to County living below the poverty 9.50% 10.00% 13 9.20% line. The incidence of 1989 8.20% poverty in Farmington is not 7.7% 1999 8.00% much higher than the 7.2% 6.5% Strafford County rate 6.4% (Figure 4.25). The poverty 6.00% rate in Farmington is higher than the state-wide average 4.00% and the average for the Portsmouth-Rochester 2.00% Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), 0.00% Farmington Strafford County Portsmouth- State of New which includes seacoast Rochester PMSA Hampshire communities in both Strafford and Rockingham counties.

However, Farmington has a disproportionate share of the County’s low income people living just above the poverty line, and a disproportionately small share of the County’s affluent households. Figure 4.26 depicts the number of Farmington households in a given income category as a percent of the number of households in that same income category in Strafford County, based on

Figure Farmington Households By Income Category as a Percent of Strafford County & Surrounding Towns, 2000

Share of County Income Bracket Share of Total County Population Share of Surrounding Town Income Bracket Share of Total Surrounding Towns Population Linear (Share of Surrounding Town Income Bracket) Linear (Share of County Income Bracket)

18% Farmington: More households in the lower income brackets 16% olds

h 14%

12% Farmington's Share of Surrounding Town's Total Households: 10.5% 10% e of House

8% Shar

6% Farmington's Share of County's Total Households: 5%

4%

2% Farmington

0%

00 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 00 ,0 ,9 ,9 9 9 9 9 9 ,0 0 4 4 4, 9, 4, 9, 9, 0 Farmington 1 1 2 3 4 7 9 4 15 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $1 $ n to to to to to to Population as a a to an th 00 00 00 00 00 00 h 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 t Percentage of ss , , , , , , 0 r e 10 15 5 5 0 5 , te L $ $ $2 $3 $5 $7 00 a Total Population 1 re $ G Income Range CHART-Share of Households-by-Income.xls 13 Poverty line is a federal measure based in part on the number of persons in a household ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-29 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 US Census data. In 2000, 5 percent of th e county’s households were in Farmington. If the distribution of Farmington’s households across income categories was the same as in the county, Farmington would have that same 5 percent of the county’s households in each income category. In fact, Farmington has a disproportionate share of the county’s low income households.

The standard definition of low income household is “Households earning less than 60% of the county’s median income (a different measure than “below poverty level” discussed above). Farmington’s median income in the US Census was $44,800. Sixty percent of this is $26,900. Farmington had a disproportionate share of the county’s households earning below this figure (about 7% in each of the three income categories set forth in Figure 4.26, versus 5 percent of total households). Stated in other terms, 32 percent of Farmington’s households fell in the low income categories, while across Strafford County only 24 percent were in these categories.

Similarly, Farmington had a higher share of low income households when compared to surrounding communities (Figure 4.26 – blue series)

The relationship between income and property values is an important one. On balance, the town would be in the best financial position if all business and residential properties paid their own way, yet were affordable to residents. Increasing the total equalized value of the town’s properties is practical only when incomes are such that new or existing residents can afford to build properties of high value or improve exiting properties past their “break-even” point. Clearly, this requires higher resident incomes, which can be expected to rise when residents are able to obtain higher-quality employment with good wages and access to benefits.

But access to higher quality employment is attainable only when job-seekers have skills and/or education levels that can out-compete others for that employment. This brings a third factor into the income/property value relationship; education attainment.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-30 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

6.2 Educational Attainment

There is a direct relationship between earnings and educational attainment. Farmington compares unfavorably to the state (it is inappropriate to compare Farmington to the county because of the presence of the University of New Hampshire).

According to the US Census, almost one-third of Farmington’s adult residents lack a high school degree, versus about 10 percent state-wide (Figure 4.27). Conversely, only 10 percent of Farmington residents have a Bachelor’s degree or more—in contrast to 30 percent state-wide. With less education, Farmington residents compete in a very education-oriented economy. In fact, the loss of manufacturing jobs in both Farmington and the County since the year 2000 means that Farmington residents are having a more difficult time maintaining their standard of living. They have to compete in a regional economy that has fewer good-paying blue collar jobs.

Figure 4.27 Educational Attainment Farmington & Strafford County

100.0% 3.0% 9.5% 6.9% 90.0% Farmington 7.0% Strafford County

s 16.9% 80.0% 9.5% ear

Y 3.0% 20.9% 70.0%

+ 16.9% 9.0%

5 6.9%

60.0% 7.0% on 2 i 9.0% t 20.5% 50.0% 20.9% 35.3% opula 40.0% 20.5% P of 30.0% 30.4% cent r 9.5% e 20.0% 16.7% P 35.3% 35.3% 30.4% 30.4% 10.0% 20.9% 20.5% 16.7% 3.0% 16.9% 16.9% 9.0% 10.2% 10.2% 9.0% 9.0% 9.5% 7.0% 6.9% 6.9% 4.6% 4.6% 0.0% 3.0% l t l t e o te e e e e re re n e o te e e e e re re n d o a re re re re o o e d o a re re re re o o e ra h u g g g g ra h u g g g g c d e e M M m c d e e M M m G a e e r r in a e e r r in S r D D D .D o a G S r D D D .D o a th h o e s f o tt th h o e s f o tt 9 ig l G t r' o d S 9 ig l G t r' o d S o ia r ra B A o ia o r ra B A n H o , N c lo P ll n H o , N c l P ll a e h e o e / G A a e h e o e / G A th c g s h te S th c g s h te S s m e s c a s m e s c a s o S ll A a u H s o S ll A a u H e S h o B d e S h o B d L ig C a L ig C a H e r H e r m G m G o o S S Attainment CHART-EducationalAttainment.xls

Farmington should work to break the cycle by bringing in educational opportunities, and thinking of educational opportunities as business opportunities for the community. Educational opportunities provide advancement opportunities for residents, and may prove to be a positive economic development strategy for the town.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-31 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 6.3 Changing Family Structures

Yet another factor contributes to Farmington’s sub-par income profile; the changing character of the households occupying Farmington’s housing units. Traditional married couple family households are on the decline in Farmington, while single person and non-family households are increasing (Figure 4.28).

Figure 4.28 - Change By Type of Household, 1990-00 Household Types

150 114 99 Non-family: consists of a person living alone or 100 81 where a householder shares a home with people to whom he/she is not related. 50 15 0 Married-Couple: a household with a married couple, with or without children. -50 -100 -66 Single-Parent: householder is an unmarried parent living with one or more children. s h * ld lds H ds o o l h ily ily Hh o eh e h s s m m e Family: where a householder has other people in u u a a s o o F F u e t the living quarters to whom he/she is related by H l n Ho al p re y t ily H u a il o m o P birth, marriage, or adoption. T a -C - m F d le e g -Fa n n rri o a Si N M

A traditional way for families to raise their standard of living is for both parents to work. But, during the 1990s there came to be fewer of these traditional families and more single parent households getting by on a single wage. Single parent families and non-family households clearly cannot rely on the strategy of raising household income by adding a second adult to the workforce. Such households would require alternative avenues for improving income such as working more than one job or obtaining job training/continuing education. In these cases, there are secondary impacts to the family - and to the community as a whole - that will demand additional services to be provided, for example, supports for children whose parents are away from home more. Daycare, after school and evening programs, reduced levels of volunteerism and, in a worst case scenario, additional demands on police are some examples. Non-traditional households are increasing dramatically in Farmington; single parent households are now 17% of all households, and non-family households are 29% of all households, an increase in the 1990s of 28% and 19% respectively. (Figure 4.28)

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-32 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Farmington’s age structure is not significantly different than the state’s, with the exception that the population under age 15 is a slightly higher percent of total population in Farmington than in the state (Figure 4.29). This does increase the cost of providing educational services in Farmington. It is Figure 4.29 Population By Age, Farmington and State, 2000 important to note that the nation will 25% soon be Farmington State experiencing a large 20% increase in the senior citizen 15% population, and this will impact local 10% governments which tion in Age Bracket (%) will require the 5% community to plan for the types of Popula 0% housing and Under 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 Over 74 services an aging 15 population will Age Bracket (years) require. PopulationAdjusted.xl

6.4 School Generation by Unit Size Figure 4.30 NH Public School Generation (K-12) There is a strong relationship between the by Year Build and Bedrooms number of bedrooms in a housing unit and the average number of school children from the unit. Four bedroom units generate nearly four times the number of school children per unit as compared to two bedroom units (0.81 versus 0.22 students).

New units generate about the same number of students per unit as existing units. On an overall basis new housing units generate more school children (0.70 students) than existing units (0.48 students), but this is primarily because new units are more likely to be larger, single family units.

The exception to this observation is for new units with four or more bedrooms, which generate an average of 1.16 students per unit, versus 0.77 students in existing units with four or more bedrooms. Families with school age children are attracted to new four-bedroom units. Over time, it is likely that the school generation emanating from these larger single-family units will drop15.

15 Housing and School Enrollment in New Hampshire: An Expanded View, New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority, May 2005. ______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-33 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 7.0 POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS

Population and housing projections are estimates of future population and housing. Farmington’s future population and housing levels are a product of the town’s growth management policies and its investment in services and capital improvements which are partially within the town’s control. Other pressures and circumstances that the town has no control over also play a part (regional economy, property values, etc) but the Master Plan presents several alternative projections, recognizing that the town has some tools available for managing its growth (such as ordinances and general growth policies).

Scenario A: State Forecast

The State of New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) is the designated agency preparing population projections for the State, its counties and its local communities. The state forecasts that Farmington’s population growth will increase by 400 to 500 residents every 5 years through the year 2025, to a high of 8,150 residents.

However, the state’s forecast builds on the year 2000 population reported by the US Census which was incorrectly reported in Farmington (see section 2.1 ‘Census Undercounts Farmington’). This being the case, the OEP projection for Farmington is low, because it begins with an undercounted year 2000 Census.

A revised population projection for the town using the state’s predicted increases is shown in Figure 4.30. This forecast is based on the more accurate year 2000 population count developed for this Master Plan (see section 2.0 ‘Population Trends’) and results in total population of 8,675 by 2025. Since the Census undercounted Farmington’s population by 525 in 2000, a revised OEP forecast can be arrived at by adding 525 to each of the state’s projected figures for the town. This raw addition method does not weight OEP’s predicted increases which are normally calculated as a percentage of population. Thus, the revised population projections in the table below are still likely to be lower than OEP would have estimated had they used the correct year 2000 population figure.

Figure 4.31 OEP Population Forecasts Based on Adjusted Census

Farmington Population and Housing Projections Scenario A: Benchmarked State Projects

Occupied Population per Population Occupied Population Housing Occupied Unit Change Housing 2000 6,303 2,340 2.69 2005 6,955 2,600 2.67 2000-2005 652 260 2010 7,435 2,810 2.65 2005-2010 480 210 2015 7,875 2,990 2.63 2010-2015 440 180 2020 8,285 3,170 2.61 2015-2020 410 180 2025 8,675 3,350 2.59 2020-2025 390 180 Adjusts State OEP projection to revised year 2000 population

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-34 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 The housing projection was developed by dividing the population by an average household size and then adding vacant/seasonal units to derive an estimate of Total Housing Units. Under this scenario, Farmington’s population is forecasted at 8,675 by the year 2025 and its housing inventory would at 3,530 units.

Scenario B: Recent Housing Construction Trends

Another forecasting method could be based on the town’s recent pace of housing construction (averaging 70 units per year). This scenario would assume that the rate of new housing construction would continue. Increases in population are calculated using a straight-line declining figure for “Population per Occupied Unit” (because the population is aging and there are generally fewer children per household). Applying the predicted new residents to the town’s adjusted Census population count (as in Scenario A) results in a predicted population of 10,460 in the year 2025 and a total housing inventory of 4,220 units—nearly double the adjusted year 2000 Census figure, and is 1,785 more than the corrected OEP forecast. (Figure 4.31)

These two scenarios set a supportable range of possible future levels of population and housing. It is appropriate that these be tested against the town’s ongoing rate of new housing construction, and revised periodically. Figure 4.32 shows a graphical comparison of the corrected 2000 population (6,303) to the OEP and Corrected OEP 2025 forecasts (8,150 and 8,675 respectively) and finally, the 2025 projection that appears more likely given Farmington’s housing trends between 2000 and 2003. This final projection predicts Farmington’s population will increase by 66% (from 6, 303 to 10,460 people).

Ultimately, the town’s future population and housing levels will be structured by the regional economy’s performance (over which the town has little influence) and the town’s growth policies (over which the town has considerable influence) therefore considerable effort should be expended by the town’s planners to guide growth rates through changes to policies and ordinances over the very near term.

Figure 4.32 OEP Population Forecasts Based on New Housing Construction

Farmington Population and Housing Projections Scenario A: Benchmarked State Projects Occupied Population per Population Occupied Population Housing Occupied Unit Change Housing 2000 6,303 2,340 2.69 2005 7,160 2,680 2.67 2000-2005 857 340 2010 8,000 3,020 2.65 2005-2010 840 340 2015 8,840 3,360 2.63 2010-2015 840 340 2020 9,660 3,700 2.61 2015-2020 820 340 2025 10,460 4,040 2.59 2020-2025 800 340 Adjusts State OEP projection to revised year 2000 population

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-35 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

8.0 SUMMARY Figure 4.33 Population Forecasts

Farmington’s economic 12,000 problems result from a mix of socio-economic, 10,000 educational, revenue

and spending issues. 66% 8,000 g

38% n Chapter Five presents a Increase i Increase s u 0 o nts range of strategies that 5 60

H 1

4 , 5 de

6,000 , i 8 2 attempt to address the , 3 5 by t 10 t 20 0 7 ,

Res s 3 6 s , multiple sources of our P d 6 cas ca E

8, , e , e r 4,000 t r en O r s problems. There is a o o on d a i T F t e F t a ec high degree of l r 25 25 ec 0 o r 0 r F 2

2,000 2 opu correlation between the o P C P E O

socio-economic 00

0 Scenario A Scenario B characteristics of 0 2 Farmington residents and the points raised in this chapter of the master plan. Farmington is primarily a moderate income community. Its tax base consists of moderately priced housing units with a particularly high concentration of mobile homes. Farmington’s average residential assessments are lower than in other communities in the county. Given this tax base, Farmington struggles to adequately fund services and maintain a competitive tax rate. To the extent Farmington reduces the quantity or quality of services, it diminishes its appeal to upper income households who could support higher residential property values. As an alternative, if the town elected to fund a higher level of services, it would required a higher tax rate, imposing a more difficult burden on its existing moderate income residents.

A position accommodating to development, regional economic and growth pressures, and a fading reputation as an undesirable community have compounded Farmington’s socio-economic woes by increasing our share of area population and housing growth. Since 2000, Farmington’s annual population growth rate has been increasing 58% faster than the county’s and 21% faster than that of surrounding towns. Between 2000 and 2025 Farmington will have grown between 38 and 66 percent to as many as 10,460 people.

The factors which have contributed to Farmington’s current socio-economic situation are complex and interconnected. If we wish to positively impact the areas of concern described in this chapter (such as resident’s education levels, the mix of housing stock, the outflow of jobs from the community) Farmington will need to develop and implement a coordinated, multi- pronged approach. This chapter describes Farmington’s current assets and challenges from a purely economic perspective. Other quality of life factors are not addressed in any depth here. A detailed summary of the implications raised by the analyses in this chapter can be found in Section 1.1 of Chapter 5 “Economic Development Strategies & Actions” in the context of identifying strategies for building on our assets and tackling our economic challenges.

______Demographic, Housing, and Economic Trends Chapter 4-36 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Chapter 5 Economic Development Strategies & Actions

Chapter 5 Economic Development Strategies & Actions

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Economic Implications 2.0 Economic Development Goals 3.0 Economic Development Strategies 3.1 Strategy One: Improve Community Quality 3.1.1 Residential Value 3.1.2 Encourage Property Improvements 3.1.3 Adopt and Enforce Reasonable Development Standards 3.2 Strategy Two: Link Education to Community Health 3.3 Strategy Three: Strengthen Downtown Farmington 3.3.1 Organization 3.3.2 Parking 3.3.3 Linkages 3.3.4 Design Guidelines 3.4 Strategy Four: Pursue State and Federal Grants 3.5 Strategy Five: Pursue Economic Diversity 3.6 Strategy Six: Employ Information-Based, Comprehensive Planning 3.7 Strategy Seven: Control Costs 3.7.1 Budgeting 3.7.2 Investing

______Economic Development Chapter 5-1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section of the Master Plan sets forth an economic development strategy for Farmington to pursue during the coming years.

The data in Chapter 4 clearly shows that Farmington’s A Sample of Economic Activity in Farmington principal economic issue is that its tax base is too limited to enable it to adequately fund municipal services while maintaining a competitive tax rate. As a result, critical services including schools, roads and recreation are maintained at a sub-par level even as the share of taxes paid by household’s increases. This, in turn, limits the town’s appeal not only to higher value residential development that “pays its own way” in terms of town and school costs – but also A Sample of Economic Activity in Farmington to new businesses that might consider relocating to Farmington. Low levels of new business development are made potentially worse by the dramatic increases in residential growth that has been occurring since 2000 because it increases the share of costs to be supported by residential taxpayers. This cycle feeds itself and increasingly worsens Farmington’s economy.

In the absence of changes, Farmington will experience continued acceleration in its rate of residential growth (already increasing 58% faster than the rest of the county). Building permits in Farmington peaked in 2003, a steady rise since 1996 which matched a rise in Farmington’s share of the counties building permits. This rise was interrupted by the Interim Growth Ordinance passed at the end of 2003. Coupled with the low average value of housing in Farmington, it is certain that these increases will fail to pay their own way through property taxes.

1.1 Economic Implications

This cycle has long been present in Farmington and continues to be the town’s principal economic challenge but other economic and demographic factors also play a part. Some conclusions from Chapter 4:

1. Since 1996, there has been a declining job base in Farmington, with jobs shifting from manufacturing to retail, service and government sectors.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

2. Although Farmington’s school population has been fairly flat since 1997, new housing development that is not registering increases in school populations either means that child-less residents, home-schooled or privately schooled children are moving to Farmington. Assuming Farmington will improve its schools; this represents a latent supply of school-age children that may create substantial futures increases in schools costs.

3. Farmington has a lower median household income ($40,971) than either the county ($44,803) or the state ($49,467).

4. Farmington has a higher percentage of low income households than the county (32% vs. 24%) a disproportionate share living just above the poverty line. These households are highly sensitive to any increases in costs which would potentially cause drastic changes in Farmington’s socio-economic climate as more families become at risk to drop below poverty level.

5. Farmington residents have substantially lower educational attainment than the state average.

6. The relationship between employment growth and population/housing activity in Farmington is driven by the interaction of the regional economy (housing, employment, etc) with the socio-economic make-up of Farmington’s population and the overall desirability of the community as a place to live.

7. Housing represents the largest component of developed land in Farmington. It is also the largest component of Farmington’s tax base, and the dominant element in the growth pressures and demand for services that the community experiences.

8. Within Farmington, the most pronounced growth in housing units has occurred within the mobile home category, which experienced a 25 percent increase in the inventory during the last decade. Farmington now has an over-concentration of mobile homes compared to the county.

9. Farmington does not have the two most important components of a healthy tax base; public infrastructure adequate to service new growth, and a balance of property taxes.

10. Farmington has a disproportionately low assessed residential housing value creating a strain on residents to pay for essential services. The average value of housing units is declining as a percentage of the break-even value. (Break-even value is the theoretical value that a home needs to be assessed at in order to raise enough revenue in taxes to equal the costs of supporting it.)

11. The loss of Collins and Aikman will deal a significant blow to Farmington’s economy and its tax base.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 12. Farmington is tax-base poor. It is currently funding services by relying on a comparatively low-valued residential tax base, and a lower than average value commercial inventory. The costs of those services, however, are set in the broader regional market which Farmington is unable to keep pace with. As a result, Farmington faces a dilemma; either (1) keep its tax rate competitively low, but fund services at a lower level, or (2) fund more services, with a higher than typical tax rate.

13. The character of the households occupying Farmington’s housing units is changing. Traditional married couple family households are on the decline in Farmington, while single person and non-family households are increasing. Increases in single parent and non-family households mean that there is generally less capacity to earn or to expand individual opportunity.

14. Following national trends, Farmington’s aging population may place a very different demand on town services in the future.

15. Locating housing within the downtown area can reduce some of the transportation costs for residents by providing access to public or shared transportation options, locating residents near potential employment opportunities, and accommodating some of the demand for future housing units in Farmington.

16. Farmington’s precarious financial state indicates a need for caution in capital (and other) spending that is non-essential unless a clear return on investment can be substantiated.

17. Farmington is receiving substantial subsidy for education costs compared to the rest of the state. If Farmington’s economy improves, and these subsidies decrease, taxpayers will have to bridge the resulting funding gap in addition to paying for essential services and discretionary spending.

18. Impact fees, while a potential source of revenue paying for infrastructure to service new growth, are complex to manage and present several potentially counter- productive outcomes if poorly implemented.

The good news is that Farmington can make choices that will help interrupt its destructive economic cycle. Some factors working in Farmington’s favor:

• The town is located in a strong regional economy, stretching from Lake Winnipesauke to the prosperous Seacoast;

• The town has excellent accessibility to the Spaulding Turnpike corridor which is a major concentration of employment, shopping, and educational opportunities.

• The town offers an attractive rural lifestyle.

• The town has an authentic, diverse downtown business district.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

• The town has significant undeveloped land resources.

• Town residents are committed to improving the town and its services.

2.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The economic development goals outlined in this Master Plan were created after:

• Analysis of economic, demographic and housing trends outlined in Chapter 4 of this Master Plan

• Discussions with the town’s economic development committee; • Discussions with the Zoning and Master Plan Committee (ZAMPS); • Analysis of the several surveys of resident preferences;

The primary goals of the economic development strategy are:

1. To expand the local tax base in a prudent manner that will adequately fund municipal and education services while maintaining a competitive tax rate;

2. To maintain a level of local services which can support both new growth, an improving quality of life and gains in individual prosperity;

3. To achieve a diverse economic and job base including manufacturing, retail, service, government, cultural, non-profit and agricultural sectors.

3.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

Economic development is often conceived in terms of recruiting new industry into a community. Historically, economic development in many New Hampshire communities has been in the form of industrial park development. While there is an appropriate role in recruiting new, larger enterprises, Farmington’s economic development needs are much broader than that. If Farmington is to make reasonable progress toward achieving its economic development goals, a diverse, multi-level economic strategy must be pursued. Some appropriate strategies are:

1. Improve the quality of residential development so that new residential development does not impose as great a cost burden on current town residents. 2. Recognize and support education of all residents as a long and short term fiscal advantage to the community. 3. Strengthen downtown Farmington so that it contributes more to the town’s tax base and employment opportunities.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 4. Actively pursue a wide range of grants to supplement local funding of public and private improvements. 5. Pursue a diverse range of economic enterprises including a diversity of smaller businesses and cottage industries so that the town offers a wide range of employment and economic opportunities. 6. Improve the quality of decision making by employing information-based, comprehensive planning that has a regional perspective, but confers real benefits to Farmington residents and makes the most of the town’s many assets. 7. Control costs and identify spending that can result in future returns on taxpayer investment as a means of encouraging personal prosperity in Farmington’s residents and a consequent improvement in the local economy as a whole.

At the outset it should be noted that Farmington’s current economic profile has evolved since Farmington’s first European settlers arrived. There are no “quick fixes” that will dramatically change the community. Rather, the town’s economic strategy is designed to retain what is favorable and to gradually improve those aspects of the Farmington economy that are unfavorable. The following sections discuss these strategies in more detail.

3.1 Strategy One: Improve Community Quality

3.1.l Residential Value

Residential units constitute 72 percent of Farmington’s tax base. Much of Farmington’s difficulty in adequately funding municipal services arises because Farmington’s housing stock is predominantly low and moderate-income units. Because they are less valuable, they generate less tax revenue, but still require a similar level of services as higher valued housing stock. This puts the town in a position of either:

1. Having a tax rate that is disproportionately high or; 2. Inadequately funding important Downtown Farmington Residential Units services.

During the past decade this pattern continued, with a disproportionate number of mobile homes and other low-moderate income housing added to Farmington’s inventory. In most cases this housing does not “pay its way”. Analysis comparing 2004 tax rates with the communities’ cost to service each household has shown that, in general, new single family homes in most NH communities would have to be valued at $250,000-$300,000 to generate enough revenue to “break even”. (See Chapter Four, Section 5.6). Homes valued at less than that amount would,

______Economic Development Chapter 5-5 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 on average, cost each taxpayer more to support. Homes valued at more than that amount would, on average, create a net gain for taxpayers causing a relative reduction in property taxes.

Farmington’s average residential value is increasing dramatically and Farmington’s share of school funding paid from local property taxes has more than doubled (a 134% increase) while the state average amount paid from local property tax has only increased by 27%. As property values and taxes increase however, housing and home ownership become more difficult for those on fixed income, and for young people just starting out.

Farmington needs to move toward a more balanced housing development pattern in order to fund increasing costs to service residents. This means fewer low and moderate-income units relative to higher valued units - taking care to preserve a sufficient volume of low to moderate income housing as well so that the youth of today’s working families can find adequate housing in the future. Over time though, Farmington must attract housing units that at least pay their way in terms of local service costs.

Farmington has qualities that can attract a larger share of units priced at $250,000 and over (which constitutes the vast majority of new housing units built in the broader Farmington market area):

• Farmington has excellent regional highway access to employment opportunities within the Spaulding Turnpike corridor. • Farmington offers a rural lifestyle without being remote. • Farmington’s school buildings are relatively new. • Farmington has been willing to accommodate new residential development. • Farmington has municipal sewer and water service in its core neighborhoods

New residential development can bring unexpected but predictable demand for expensive new services including emergency sub-stations (e.g. fire or police), road network expansion/ maintenance as well as waste handling. Secondary impacts of new residential development should be assessed before implementing this strategy. Figure 5.2 Farmington is growing… from Master Plan Survey (AER) 2004 This strategy does not recommend increasing the rate at which new No response 5% housing is developed in Farmington, but rather that the development we do get is of a higher quality to generate higher Growing at about the right pace tax revenue per housing unit. A Growing too fast 35% majority of respondents to master 55% plan surveys believe that Farmington is already growing too quickly (see Figure 5.2) Growing too slow 11%

______Economic Development Chapter 5-6 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.1.2 Encourage property Improvements

Another means to improve assessed property values is to improve the quality and value of current housing stock and the town’s commercial inventory.

Many residents are reluctant to improve housing quality as a means to control their property tax liability. Financial incentives can be developed to encourage homeowners to improve their properties as a means to offset eventual increases in property tax. USDA Rural Development and others provide low-interest loan and grant programs for this purpose.

Similarly, improvements to commercial inventory should be encouraged, even through the use of taxpayer-funded small grants or loans. Sixty-two percent of respondents to master plan surveys support the use of local funds to help revitalize downtown, and 82% supported doing more to help businesses currently located in Farmington. Rural Development funds or low-interest economic loans from regional economic development corporations could also be applied to this purpose.

3.1.3 Adopt and Enforce reasonable Development Standards

Too many Farmington residents, development controls (enforced as a part of the town’s zoning and site plan review process) are seen as an impediment to economic development. One need only looked to other communities in the region, however, to see that the region’s more prosperous communities typically adopt very strong development controls. Portsmouth is one example, where very strict design guidelines have generated high property values. In contrast, Farmington currently has not adopted any specific design guidelines. Additionally, Farmington has willingly bent its development controls to accommodate businesses and residences. This is understandable, but the result has been, in too many instances, substandard development that is low in value and generates lower tax revenues. In effect, then the lack of appropriate controls and weak enforcement of existing controls ends up costing existing taxpayers.

This is not to say that Farmington’s development controls should discourage development, but rather that they should insure quality development consistent with contemporary development standards. A continuing effort to refine and adhere to the town’s development ordinances and standards, as well as a commitment to enforce existing provisions is recommended. Methods also should be developed that will prevent down-grading of housing that is demolished or destroyed by fire with housing of lesser value.

Mandatory design standards for commercial development were preferred by 48% of respondents to master plan surveys while the same percentage favored suggested standards for residential development.

Potential Actions:

1. Ensure that Farmington’s regulations continue to provide opportunities for a diverse mix of housing unit types that can accommodate the changing composition of Farmington’s households and support the desired level of services.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-7 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 2. Adopt and enforce standards and regulations that improve the quality and value of new residential and non-residential development.

3. Restrict the development of new mobile home parks and subdivisions to compensate for the disproportionately high share of mobile homes in Farmington.

4. Identify and implement incentives that will offset increases in property taxes that result from property improvements.

3.2 Strategy Two: Link Education to community Health

One key missing element that would encourage fiscally sound new residential development is that Farmington’s school student test results are among the lowest in the state.1 Quality of schools is a major factor in the residential location decision. In effect, the poor performance of Farmington’s schools, despite their newer facilities, creates a cycle that is very difficult to reverse, but there are several potential actions that could help address the problem.

Farmington can seek to attract households that are less sensitive to the school issue. Communities throughout New Hampshire are attracting age-restricted housing as they generally generate more revenues than costs to the local community, because they generate very few, if any, school children. Age restriction requirements can be difficult to enforce once the development is completed and occupied, so carefully drafted ordinances and deed restrictions should be in place prior to encouraging this type of development. At a minimum, age restricted units require one resident of each unit to be at least age 55. Surveys of age restricted developments in NH indicate that these units generate one-tenth the enrollment of typical single family units, yet they carry assessed values that are usually at, or close to, that of new single family units. Many towns have elderly housing ordinances that are very specific, and have more stringent requirements than those minimums described in state Elementary School law. Because of its low tax base and higher than average special Safewalk Route education needs, Farmington receives significant state and federal school aid, but Farmington must supplement that aid with local school funding. The community also has the ability to establish performance standards that could complement federal requirements such as the “No Child Left Behind” legislation which provides some framework for generating and enforcing education performance standards.

Potential Actions:

1. Attempt to attract households that carry fewer school costs such as age-restricted

1 See Community Facilities chapter of this Master Plan. ______Economic Development Chapter 5-8 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 housing. The town should carefully evaluate the potential need for increased services or infrastructure such as ambulance, medical facilities, transportation, recreation, etc.

2. Farmington should address its school issue directly by recognizing that improving the performance of its students is a high priority. Foster improvements in both scholastic and social programs.

3. Improve educational attainment through goal-setting and performance standards. School administrators must be responsive to testing results in planning for goal attainment.

4. Improve the performance of local schools by ensuring competitive teacher salaries and a competitive student to teacher ratio.

5. Provide sufficient investment in education so that education goals are attained.

3.3 Strategy Three: Strengthen Downtown Farmington

Downtown Farmington is the community’s activity center and a vital aspect of the community’s image. It is a significant source of jobs providing several hundred jobs in just under 50 downtown businesses. The relatively low rents and rapid turnover create affordable opportunities for local residents to open businesses acting as a small business incubator of sorts. The non-residential tax base generated helps fund local services.

As part of this Master Plan analysis an inventory of downtown Farmington’s commercial there were forty-seven (47) establishments, including local government uses. The inventory Downtown Farmington Business reveals a remarkably healthy diversity of retail, service and government uses for a community the size of Farmington. We identified only three vacancies (all relatively small shops) among downtown’s first floor spaces. By January 2005 however, there were six vacancies, supporting anecdotal evidence that there is a high turnover rate cyclically worse in deep winter and belying a fragile downtown economy. Seasonal vacancies can be related to a number of factors including lower foot-traffic, departing summer vacationers, poor condition of heating systems and structures, and the non-essential nature of many Main Street businesses.

Essentially all of the major service categories are represented downtown including banks, utilities, auto repair, hair care, travel and lodging. The location of the Post Office, town offices, and the library in downtown are important traffic generators.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-9 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

The inventory of 5-1 Downtown Farmington Commercial Inventory retail business is less diverse than the Misc. 2 services in downtown, Vacant 3 but does cover a number of important Convenience Goods 3 categories including Gifts, Flowers, Antiques 6 hardware, convenience stores, Government 6 gifts, flowers, and Restaurants 9 antiques. The Services 18 restaurants in downtown range from 0 5 10 15 20 modest pizza parlors Number of Establishments to an upscale destination Italian restaurant.

Downtown Farmington is not large enough to attract shoppers from surrounding communities in sizable numbers on a regular basis. But it is large enough and diverse enough to serve as a service center for surrounding communities (especially those to the west and north, which lack a competitive concentration of services) and as a retail center for town residents.

Support for retailing in downtown is helped by the high concentration of residences both within and adjacent to downtown and by downtown’s exposure to relatively heavy traffic counts. This strategy offers suggestions to enhance the relationship between downtown Farmington and these somewhat captive market segments.

While appreciating the downtown’s assets, we also recognize that downtown is not achieving its full potential:

• Characteristic of many New Hampshire downtowns, much of the upper floor space in downtown is either under-improved or vacant. Most of this space consists of residential apartments that have not kept pace with the times. Better utilization of this space would add more support to the downtown’s retail and service establishments and enhance the community’s tax base without the need to expand the infrastructure.

• Many of Farmington’s older residential structures are in neighborhoods close to downtown. As is true for the upper floor space in downtown, many of these structures are in only fair to poor condition. The links to downtown are hampered in some instances by a lack of sidewalks.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-10 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 • There are two organizations promoting the downtown’s interests and providing direction to downtown. One is the municipal Downtown Committee, and the other is the non-profit Farmington Community Preservation Guild. Both are all-volunteer groups, neither of which has generated a comprehensive plan for downtown improvement. The experience of other New Hampshire communities is that it is difficult to improve a downtown’s performance without an organized promotions and marketing effort. Towns are often most successful in this arena when “community service organizations” are staffed, supported and funded, have a close working relationship with town leaders, and are working from a comprehensive improvement plan.

• There appears to be enough parking in downtown, but the on-street parking is parallel parking, which is more difficult for some drivers than head-in parking. Some downtowns have shifted to head-in parking where street widths permit it. Lack of parking enforcement is cited by many downtown businesses as causing shortages of convenient parking which affect drop-in business.

• Downtown buildings are in various states of repair and maintenance. Downtown is not as attractive as it could be. This can deter drivers from stopping in downtown.

• There is inadequate signage directing travelers on Route 11 to downtown Farmington.

• Some downtown patrons come away with a negative impression generated by youth “hanging out” on street corners.

The following paragraphs set forth specific ways to improve downtown Farmington.

3.3.1 Organization

The first recommendation for downtown is to encourage downtown businesses, property owners, and residents to contribute time and support to one of the two downtown promotion organizations. Few downtowns have been able to achieve meaningful improvements without the focused energy provided by such groups. Downtown promotion activities could consist of the following:

• Stage and publicize special events • Encourage property rehabilitation • Develop design guidelines ( in process ) • Work with town officials to encourage appropriate, cooperative public-private efforts designed to improve the downtown • Help new business owners establish successful ventures • Recruit new businesses that are compatible with existing businesses

The groups should work closely with Economic Development Committee, the Board of Selectmen, downtown businesses and other stakeholders. Many New Hampshire downtowns have joined the Main Street Program, administered within the NH Community Development

______Economic Development Chapter 5-11 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Finance Authority, but Farmington may prefer to strengthen it sown downtown promotional organizations instead.

3.3.2 Parking

Functionally, downtown parking should: 1. Provide convenient access to businesses and other destinations 2. Capture through traffic to patronize the downtown 3. Match the scale of the community and the streetscape.

In addition, parking design could provide some traffic calming, and be used to route patrons past businesses that rely on drop-in business.

For many of the businesses in Farmington’s downtown, the parking is not convenient enough to easily capture the high volumes of through traffic that will strengthen the health of businesses that the downtown currently contains. In part, this is because parking is not well designed or well managed.

In the short term, there are a number of measures that the town can take that will improve parking and strengthen business, but as the health of the downtown improves and new destinations become attractive to shoppers, it is likely that other measures will be required.

Plans should be considered that might:

• Shorten time limits where parking serves drop-in type businesses • Enforce all parking time limits • Improve parking convenience such that it encourages people to stop and get familiar with downtown businesses • Reconfigure parking to provide head-in parking where possible • Improve visibility of parking signage and make parking alternatives more attractive • Design parking for anchor and destination businesses so that patrons are routed past other downtown businesses. • Keep parking areas clear and attractive so that patrons coming to and from their cars can enjoy their pedestrian experience • Explore and formalize shared parking arrangements that can help downtown residents to free up prime patron parking • Institute a program that encourages business owners to park off-street or in all-day municipal lots.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-12 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.3.3 Linkages

One of downtown’s assets is that there is a high population concentration in the neighborhoods immediately abutting downtown. This concentrated population provides downtown with a captive market. The links between downtown and these neighborhoods are less than ideal, however. In some cases sidewalks are nonexistent or in poor condition. There are no established bike paths between the neighborhoods and downtown, raising safety and convenience issues. Improving these pedestrian and bicycle linkages on a phased, priority-specific manner, over a period of time would help encourage residential reinvestment and a healthier business climate in downtown.

3.3.4 Design Guidelines Downtown has a number of architecturally significant buildings. Relatively few of these, however, have been rehabilitated to maximize their historic character. The Farmington Community Preservation Guild in cooperation with the planning board has been leading an effort in the community to draft model design guidelines for the downtown area. It is recommended that design guidelines for downtown, and possibly elsewhere, be incorporated into the town’s site plan review process. These actions are consistent with Strategy One – “Improve Community Quality”.

Downtown Design Potential Actions: Features

1. Encourage the redevelopment of downtown properties so that they incorporate a mix of uses including a variety of housing types. To achieve this, the Zoning Ordinance for the Village Center should be adjusted to emphasize that mixed use downtown is desirable, and contributes to a dynamic community center.

2. Support the town’s existing downtown promotion organizations which should work closely with Economic Development Committee, the Board of Selectmen, downtown businesses, and other stakeholders.

3. Develop and implement a downtown parking plan and plans to encourage pedestrian activity which make the downtown easily accessible and meet the goals established in this section (3.3).

4. Identify means to brand the downtown as the historic center of commerce by promoting its historic character, and supporting proposed and existing downtown commercial establishments.

5. Incorporate design standards into Farmington’s site plan review process.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-13 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.4 Strategy Four: Pursue State and Federal Grants

Downtown Farmington is an appropriate setting for state and federal grant programs to encourage residential rehabilitation and commercial revitalization. The principal source of potential funding is Community Development Block Grants. The primary purpose of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is the development of strong, healthy communities, by providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. It is sponsored by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered through the NH Community Development Finance Authority (NHCDFA). There are several types of grants available:

• Economic Development grants provide funds through an annual set-aside for activities which create and retain employment, primarily for low and moderate income persons, by providing business financing through Regional Development Corporations, or through public facility improvements to support economic development efforts. The main goal in this category is to create jobs that provide good wages, benefits and training programs. • Affordable housing and housing rehabilitation grants provide a municipality with the funds to purchase, rehabilitate, expand and improve the condition and supply of housing for low and moderate income homeowners and tenants. CDBG funds are often sub- granted to non-profit affordable housing developers for these purposes. • Public Facilities grants include water/sewer system improvements, streets, sidewalks, handicapped access, and community centers that provide public services to low and moderate income persons. • The objectives of a feasibility study grant are to determine whether or not a proposed CDBG project is feasible and/or to recommend specific action(s) to be undertaken and that at least 51% of the intended beneficiaries will be low and moderate income. Eligible activities include income surveys, architectural and engineering design, cost estimates, and market analyses.

All of these efforts are potentially appropriate to downtown Farmington. The objective in Farmington would not be to introduce more affordable housing units (Farmington accommodates its share of low and moderate income housing now), but rather to improve the quality of the housing stock, to improve the public areas in downtown and to encourage new business creation and jobs in downtown.

In addition to these grants, Farmington should aggressively pursue Community Facility Grants and Loans from the United States Department of Agriculture and the US Economic Development Administration. These grants are a potential source of funding for sewer and water improvements and for broadly based economic development initiatives.

Lastly, the NH Department of Transportation oversees various federal transportation grant programs. A new initiative supports alternative forms of transportation, including bikeways, pedestrian pathways and multi-modal transportation improvements.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-14 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Potential Actions:

1. Develop and implement a program so that the town is regularly seeking and receiving grants in the areas outlined in this section (Section 3.4)

2. Identify other available grant programs

3.5 Strategy Five: Pursue Economic Diversity

This strategy recommends strengthening Farmington’s market position as a regional employment center through positive promotion and marketing in order to attract desirable growth, development, and redevelopment investments that will support the tax base.

Currently, there are two principal ventures in Farmington whose primary purpose is to assist in job creation and in amplifying the town’s nonresidential tax base.

Commerce Park, the first venture, was developed by the Wentworth Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit development group located in Wolfeboro. The park is located on Route 11, three miles from Spaulding Turnpike (Route 16). The entrance road, Commerce Park Way was constructed in 1998. It was designed and built to handle the heavy truckloads that are shipped from and delivered to the Voith Sulzer Paper Technologies Service Center. There are underground utilities (electricity including three phase power, phone, etc.) and municipal water. There are 39 acres zoned industrial available. Unfortunately the park is located on land that is difficult and expensive to develop. It has proven to be uneconomic to extend roads and utilities without the financial participation of a new business or state/federal grants (which are generally only available when a new business has committed). As such, development of the park has been stymied—infrastructure cannot be developed without a new business and it is difficult to attract a new business without the extension of roads and utilities into the park. In time, however, an appropriate business may surface as a result of local and regional recruiting efforts.

The second venture is the town’s Sarah Greenfield Business Park, located at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 153. In its current configuration the park has a total area of 15 acres, of which 7 acres remain available. The park is served by town water but town sewer is not available. All efforts should be made to seek a business or businesses that generate jobs and follow the design standards set forth at the origination of the park. Nonetheless, the park is conveniently located and its land is readily developable. Sarah Greenfield Business Park

______Economic Development Chapter 5-15 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Other sites could also be developed by the town. Appropriate sites would have the following characteristics:

• Be conveniently located with good access to Route 11.

• Be appropriately sized – at least 25 acres.

• Have current or potential future town sewer and water service.

• Internal lots should not be established prior to identifying buyer interest, so that large and small businesses can be accommodated.

Conventional thinking holds that economic development is best achieved by recruiting relatively large business enterprises. This has become increasingly difficult in the current economic environment. New Hampshire lost 25,000 manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2004—a 25% decline. Further, the NH Employment Security Commission is anticipating continuing manufacturing employment losses during the coming decade.

It is appropriate for Farmington to look to small and medium enterprises, including cottage industries and agricultural enterprises as a way to enhance the town’s job base.

Agriculture is an additional source of economic diversity. Small-scale agricultural enterprises are experiencing resurgence in New Hampshire. These enterprises add jobs and tax base while enhancing community character. They are compatible in Farmington’s history and its desire to preserve its historic, rural character. Enhancing agricultural enterprises can create positive economic benefits without the sizable investments and disruptions to community character that frequently accompany retail, service and industrial job creation. Farmington has a Farmer’s Market operating on Saturdays, which provides an outlet for local products.

Similarly, the creative economy is emerging as an important element of economic diversity in New Hampshire. The success of Portsmouth is partly supported by various arts and performance efforts. These frequently require community financial support in the form of inexpensive space. There are buildings in downtown Farmington that are underutilized (particularly upper floors) that could provide affordable living/working space for artists. This would add vitality to downtown Farmington.

As the federal government continues to privatize social services, the non-profit sector becomes a growing economic sector. Examples include the Visiting Nurse Association, which, unfortunately recently relocated from downtown Farmington to Route 11 in Rochester. Farmington has disproportionate needs due to its low and moderate income population. Non- profits large and small provide financial benefits to the communities in which they are established. The availability of even a single small office or shared space can help establish or retain a service-related business.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-16 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Potential Actions:

1. The Economic Development Committee should continue to oversee the marketing and development of the Sarah Greenfield Park.

2. The town should give consideration to extending sewer service to the Sarah Greenfield Park if the extension is supported by a comprehensive plan, there is an identified need for sewer service to secure an incoming business that would generate sufficient jobs and tax revenue to justify the expense. The Water & Sewer Department estimated in 2005 that the cost of extending sewer is $1 million dollars per mile.

3. The Economic Development Committee should remain alert to sites appropriate for business park development that may come on the market.

4. The town’s zoning ordinance should be reviewed to insure that it accommodates agricultural businesses, home businesses and small businesses.

5. Create incentives that would encourage arts-related businesses – including residential studios – particularly in the downtown.

6. Encourage non-profits and service providers to locate in Farmington, particularly in downtown Farmington.

3.6 Strategy Six: Employ Information-based, Comprehensive Planning

As Chapter Four outlines, Farmington’s economic health relies on a host of interrelated factors. As is evidenced by the inclusion of this new chapter in the Master Plan, effective Economic Development planning for a community in Farmington’s position is complex and requires planning that:

1. Identifies and effectively capitalizes on the town’s assets - Taxpayer funds can be stretched farther when existing assets are folded into expansion of services or infrastructure. Once the assets valued by the community are identified, community leaders should give thoughtful consideration as to how to best protect and/or utilize those assets in future planning.

2. Acquires and employs quality information – Effective planning requires accurate information. Studies and data can be obtained from reliable, objective sources such as university, state agencies, private consultants, county agencies, regional service organizations, etc. Information and acquired data should be available to all of the community’s decision makers and service organizations so that comprehensive planning and decisions are based on consistent data.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-17 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3. Recognizes our relationship to the region – Thee are significant benefits to be derived from cooperative planning, especially in relation to transportation, market areas, conservation efforts, as well as purchasing and service delivery efficiencies. Understanding how decisions about growth, transportation, employment, etc. made by Farmington will impact our neighbors and vice-versa is essential.

4. Is guided by long-term planning – The Master Plan, Capital Improvement Plan Transportation Plan and other long-term planning tools create a framework for decision making and prioritizing. It is the responsibility of boards and community leaders to create goals and implementation planning that is consistent with these long-range planning instruments. Boards need to exercise a certain amount of self-discipline not only in working to create advanced planning, but also to utilize those plans as they make decisions on Farmington’s behalf.

5. Is timely and comprehensive – It is far too easy to address single-issue problems as they arise without creating solutions that consider broader implications. Solutions should connect related assets and create multiple beneficial outcomes. For example, it should be clear that “quality of life” and community prosperity are linked, and one should not be sacrificed for the other. Benefits from the acquisition of new assets can be maximized by planning for multiple use y multiple sectors of the community.

Potential Actions:

1. Consider having a cost of community services study prepared. This would clarify what carious land uses provide in tax revenue and what they demand in services. A first step would be to review studies completed in other communities to see if the analysis is relevant to Farmington. Identification and cost-modeling of secondary impacts to growth and development will help inform future planning.

2. Schedule regular updates of the raw data contained in this Master Plan, (particularly that in Chapters Four and Chapter Six) so that growth and development decision making can be based on current data.

3.7 Strategy Seven: Control Costs

Controlling costs is all about fiscal discipline – i.e. not spending even though you may want to Chapter Four has clearly shown that Farmington is in a declining fiscal position.

3.7.1 Budgeting

Identifying Costs: Controlling costs begins with a budget that makes clear the nature of the spending it recommends. A good first step is making clear the nature of the town’s annual budgets by identifying each of the town’s budget lines as one of the following.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-18 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 1. essential to the operation of the community.

2. investment that will return real, identifiable future or present value to the community.

3. discretionary in the sense that the spending is not required for day to day operation, but nevertheless will add to quality of life of residents.

All other spending should be strongly resisted by Farmington’s voters and by its department heads and administrators.

In recent years, the Town Administrator has provided summaries to voters showing the fiscal impact of bond issues, and other discretionary spending. Identifying fiscal impacts for voters can assist them to understand the true cost consequence relationship of the issues that are presented to them.

Capital Improvement: To be realistic and affordable, Capital Improvement Planning must consider predicted or existing deficiencies of capital assets, projected growth that will create the need for expansion of capital assets and the ability of residents to pay for these new or expanded assets. Often CIP’s are perceived as wish-lists. Requiring departments to categorize their capital purchasing in the above categories is important to dispelling that perception.

Another way to keep the CIP fair and realistic is a clear analysis of the ability of even the lowest income households to afford capital purchasing. Fixed income households and those with limited ability to expand total household incomes must be protected from over-enthusiastic expansions of capital assets.

As discussed in Chapter Four, the rate of expansion of capital infrastructure can harm a town’s ability to control rates of future growth. One way to address this is to slow capital infrastructure expansion so that it occurs in a manner timely enough to support desirable growth, but not so quickly that it over-burdens taxpayers and limits the town’s ability to manage growth rates.

Another is to link growth rate controls to the growth window that capital asset planning has targeted. For example, if a capital asset is intended to provide service for twenty years of growth, then in any year in which population growth exceeded one-twentieth of the total growth for which the asset was planned, that asset would be designated as a growth limiting factor. When the CIP is linked to our ability to pay (as described above) then surpassing our planned growth rate for any asset by definition indicates that the community has exceeded its ability to pay.

Potential Actions:

1. Create a fiscal impact statement for all discretionary and investment spending that identifies the impact on both the tax rate and on the median income household (based on average residential value). For example, a bond issue that creates a change in the tax rate of $1.00 per thousand would impact the average-value

______Economic Development Chapter 5-19 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 house by $59.40 (2000 average residential assessment of $59,400 multiplied by $1/1000).

2. Totaling all of the discretionary spending proposed and comparing the additional tax burden it represents to the median income household will provide an indication of the impact of non-essential spending on the average resident.

3. Similarly, spending being presented as an investment should attempt to predict the rate and period of return (if monetary return or cost-avoidance is predicted) or the manner in which investments in people will improve Farmington’s local economy.

3.7.2 Investing

The previous section distinguishes “Investment” as a type of municipal spending. There are several ways for the community to achieve this goal which could result in financial benefits to the community as a whole in such areas as

1. increased capacity of local workforce that comes with increased education attainment or diversity (capacity building)

2. economic/community development projects that have clear financial benefits with limited predictable secondary impacts (revenue/employment generating)

3. avoidance of predictable future costs (cost avoidance/cost management)

Building Capacity in “People Assets”: Building the capacity to generate income is a primary concern for any community – as it is for any business. Building a sewer and water infrastructure to put the community in a position to attract industry is an obvious example, but building a workforce to attract industry is not always the first thing considered. One factor that attracts businesses is a workforce to serve them. Secondary impacts of increasing educational attainment are generally always positive a more involved and knowledgeable citizenry, better transfer of developmental and learning skills from parents to children thereby reducing education costs, and improved earning capacity which creates more disposable income to be spent locally. Investment to Generate Revenue: Generally, economic and community development projects are geared toward obvious revenue-positive benefits. Cost of community service studies summarized in Chapter Four clearly show that direct impacts from commercial and industrial development are revenue-positive. These benefits are often assessed on a site by site basis as proposals come in to the town, so secondary impacts that can reduce the revenue benefits to the town can often be missed in assessing any proposal’s value.

Often, general infrastructure improvements can be considered in this category of investment, but some of the traditional sectors of infrastructure investment (e.g. roads or sewer and water) usually “pay off” to the community when one or two large businesses are attracted to the community as a result. As outlined in Chapter Four, this type of opportunity is decreasing across the country as more large businesses and manufacturing companies move their operations

______Economic Development Chapter 5-20 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 offshore. In the information economy, broadband and communications infrastructure appear to be replacing “grey infrastructure” as an attraction not just for information based businesses, but for business in general.

Any investment to generate revenue should examine predictable secondary impacts (such as those generated at the Cardinal Landfill, now under environmental monitoring for hazardous materials and out-gassing). A clear cost-benefit analysis should be prepared to identify the benefits to the community as well as potential direct and indirect costs. The actions outlined in Strategy Six should guide the community’s pursuit of new revenue through investment in economic diversity.

Cost Avoidance/Cost Management: Chapter Four outlines the high cost of community services demanded by residential development and identifies the largest single cost to taxpayers as schools. Avoiding the cost of creating and maintaining new schools and other municipal infrastructure is critical to the town’s economic future. There are at least three ways to manage this: rate-of-growth controls, developing where it is least expensive to service, and conservation land acquisition.

Rate of growth controls can take any of several forms: subdivision development phasing (implemented in Farmington in 2004), building permit caps, urban growth boundaries, etc Because of Farmington’s high ratio of essential land use to other types of developed land use, and it attractiveness for future development, any impact to the rate of that development will have a dramatic effect on future costs. As discussed in Chapter Four, some growth control mechanisms can only be instituted when

a) there is more growth in the town than elsewhere in the market area and b) there is not sufficient infrastructure to service that growth.

Growth control mechanisms are highly favored by respondents to the final survey conducted as a part of this master plan (82% in favor of controlling the pace of development, 82% in favor of building permit caps).

The other means of avoiding the future cost of growth is to reduce the amount of land available for development either through concentrating development (in areas like the downtown or on existing or planned water and sewer lines or in areas where emergency services can rapidly respond without new substations) or through purchase of conservation easements or conservation land. One analysis that assists voters in the decision to purchase conservation land shows how many houses the property would support, and therefore how many new school children won’t need space in a new school. (62% in favor of using local funds to acquire permanent open space.)

The town has increased allowable residential densities in the downtown with mixed results. Increasing densities is a cost-control measure in that it concentrates development where it is least expensive to service. But these measures must be exercised carefully so as not to de-value abutting properties or the nature of any particular neighborhood. Density increases – particularly

______Economic Development Chapter 5-21 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 in the village center and urban residential areas – should be allowed only when the development is consistent with the type of development currently there.

Potential Actions:

1. Plan to maintain a climate conducive to the town maintaining rate-of-growth mechanisms as often as necessary to control costs and maintain quality of life for residents. This will involve

a) pacing infrastructure improvements so that excess infrastructure capacity is not created in a manner that would limit our ability to control our own rate of growth, and

b) monitoring a set of growth indicators for the town and its market area (Strafford County).

2. Create an awareness of the services that will be required by a larger elderly population. This may include greater demand for transportation, housing options, access to healthcare, and other programs.

3. Work with the Scholl Board to better incorporate school properties into community life by providing space for programs and services that would otherwise by housed elsewhere with additional costs. Similarly, use of other pubic assets and properties should be employed to their maximum capacity for uses that have public benefit.

4. Create procedures in municipal planning and business recruitment arenas that assess secondary impacts as a part of a structured cost-benefit analysis.

5. Fund conservation land acquisition as a means of controlling future costs of growth.

6. Create “neighborhood-sensitive planning” methods that will allow higher residential densities only when those densities are consistent with the neighborhood in which new development is proposed.

______Economic Development Chapter 5-22 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Chapter 6 Community Facilities & Services

Goodwin Library

Chapter 6 Community Facilities & Services

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Schools 2.1 Enrollment Trends 2.2 Projected Enrollment 2.3 School Facilities 2.4 Planning Factors in School Performance 2.5 Schools: Conclusion 3.0 Police and Public Safety 4.0 Fire Department 5.0 Public Works 5.1 Water Department 5.2 Wastewater 5.3 Solid Waste 5.4 Highway Department 6.0 Town Offices 7.0 Goodwin Library 8.0 Local Access Cable 9.0 Synopsis of Town Buildings 9.1 Adequacy of Town Buildings 10.0 Land Use Implications and Potential Actions 10.1 Land Use Implications 10.2 Potential Actions

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the Master Plan sets forth observations regarding Community Facilities in Farmington.

2.0 SCHOOLS

Schools are of critical importance to the town of Farmington. A high quality educational system is essential to adequately prepare Farmington’s children to be successful in an increasingly complex world. Farmington offers educational services for students from pre-kindergarten through high school at its three school facilities. Additionally, through a partnership with the Explore Collaborative, basic adult education and enrichment classes were offered to residents in 2004-2005 using classroom space provided by the district. Schools are also fundamentally linked to the economic health of the community.

There is strong linkage between successful schools and successful economic development. Successful schools provide improved employment skills to the community’s children and help attract new business activity, raising income levels. This is especially true in the current economic environment—studies have shown a high correlation between educational quality and successful economic development. Potential investors are attracted to communities with good schools; both as a source of workers and as the type of community business managers and their employees prefer to live in. Today’s economy rewards skilled labor, while unskilled workers struggle to attain a livable wage. Upper income residents, who can afford to pay higher property taxes, are attracted to communities with high quality schools and frequently avoid communities with perceived poor quality schools. It will be difficult to attract housing that “pays its own way” without the perception in the market that Farmington offers its residents an education that is competitive with that of surrounding communities. As in Farmington High School most New Hampshire towns, schools represent the largest and most important local expenditure. In 2003 Farmington’s school funding totaled approximately $11.8 million, which represents 70% of the town’s total expenditures (municipal and school).

2.1 Enrollment Trends

In addition to Farmington students, Middleton also sends students of all grades into the Farmington district schools, under a contract that is scheduled to expire later in this decade. As of this writing, Middleton is considering alternatives to sending students to Farmington schools, including the possible construction of an elementary school.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Long-term trends in total enrollment for grades 1-12 are charted in figure 6-1.1 Total enrollment grew during the 1990s as the baby boom echo (the children of baby boomers) entered school enrollment age categories. In 1997 total enrollment in grades 1-12 flattened out and has been essentially stable since then, falling modestly in the early years of the current decade. This is significant, in that the pace of new housing construction increased between 1997 and 2003. This higher level of building activity, which brought new students into the system, was offset by the gradual passage of the baby boom echo children through the system.

Figure 6-1 Farmington Schools Total

Enrollment Grades 1-12 1600 1400

1200 1000

800 600 400

200 0

9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

This fading baby boom echo can be seen to affect these numbers when examining first grade entering class sizes. Because students tend to remain in the district, smaller entering classes would normally predict declining total enrollment over time, other things being equal – although they rarely are, as we shall see. In Farmington, entering class size declined from a peak of 126 in 1980 to a low of 106 in 2001 (Figure 6-2). This pattern of national demographics has therefore offset the increase of new students entering the system to keep total enrollment stable. Once the baby boom echo fades away once and for all in the later part of the current decade, total enrollment can be expected to more closely match the rate of increase of new residential construction.

1 For the sake of comparing apples and apples over the long term, Figure 6-1 does not include pre-kindergarten and kindergarten enrollment. Farmington began offering Kindergarten in the 1998-99 school year. ______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Figure 6-2 First Grade Entering Class Size Trend line 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Farmington High School/Valley View Sign

Figure 6-3 reveals that enrollment has not been growing at any of the grade levels in recent years in Farmington. In fact, because of the trends discussed above, enrollment at the elementary level has been declining.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Figure 6-3

Farmington School District Enrollment 1800

1600

1400

s t 1200 Pre-Kindergarten

n e 1000

d Kindergarten u t 800 Elementary (1-8)

# S 600 High School 400 Total 200 0 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / / / 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Years

Table 6-3 Farmington School District Enrollment Year Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten Elementary (1-8) High School Total 1997/98 30 0 944 445 1419 1998/99 12 87 968 440 1507 1999/00 11 88 923 441 1463 2000/01 15 84 972 459 1530 2001/02 19 91 883 445 1438 2002/03 16 91 882 451 1440 2003/04 18 110 857 478 1463

Note that since 1998, when Kindergarten began to be offered, total enrollment has dropped by about 50 students even though this was a period of increased housing construction in Farmington. Demographic forces that result in fewer students per household explain this seemingly incompatible situation. This trend appears in most New Hampshire school districts.

Looking more specifically at enrollment trends, it is possible to compute the net migration of students into and out of the elementary school grades in Farmington.2 The trend is somewhat erratic with a significant net in-migration of 33 students between 1999 and 2000; and a significant out-migration of 56 students the following year. This out migration may be attributable to concerns about air quality in the 2001-2002 school year. Other years since 2002 show no meaningful in or out migration of students.

2 This is computed by observing the progression rate of students from one year to another. If, for example there were 100 first grade students in a given year, and 105 second grade students the following year, the data would show a net in migration of 5 students. It is not possible to compute migration for the high school because of the enrollment of Middleton students. ______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Figure 6-4 Farmington Enrollment Migration 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Grade 2 -4 -19 -9 -13 Grade 3 11 -6 3 -7 Grade 4 6 -13 -9 4 Grade 5 8 -7 12 8 Grade 6 7 -4 -2 -1 Grade 7 0 -6 8 -1 Grade 8 5 -1 -2 2 Total 33 -56 1 -8

School generation town-wide based on students residing in Farmington and the town’s occupied housing units averages about one student for every two housing units

Figure 6-5 School Enrollment per Occupied Unit 1990 2000 Farmington Resident Students 996 1180 Occupied Units 2,032 2343 Enrollment per Unit 0.4902 0.5036

Note: year 2000 is the Revised Census figure

2.2 Projected Enrollment

SAU 61, which oversees Farmington’s schools has projected future enrollment. Those projections call for overall enrollment to continue the recent trend of modest declines with enrollment dropping by about 15-20 students per year. Enrollment is projected to decline at the elementary, middle and high school grade levels. These projected enrollment declines occur because the baby boomer’s children will be graduating from Farmington’s schools over the next 5+ years. This projection is not “set in stone”--if Farmington’s rate of population growth rises above recent levels, enrollment could increase. In fact, population growth rates may already be having an impact. Figures supplied by the superintendent of schools indicate that enrollment figures for 2004 and 2005 have remained level.

Though the vast majority of students in the Farmington schools are Farmington residents, enrollment from Middleton has been increasing, in contrast to recent declines in enrollment from Farmington.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 5 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Figure 6-6 Farmington School Enrollment By Community

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Middleton Farmington

Currently Middleton sends just over 300 students to the Farmington schools, representing about 25% of total Farmington school enrollment. Should Middleton elect to either build schools or send their students to another district, Farmington would achieve significant capacity in its school system, but at a loss of significant tuition revenues, which could increase the education costs to Farmington residents.

2.3 School Facilities

The K-3 and High School facilities are of recent vintage. The middle school was recently renovated as well. The Farmington schools, on average, are among the newest for any community in the state.

Table 6-7 Farmington School Facilities

Year Built/ 2003 Renovated Grades Capacity +/- Enrollment Valley View 2002 K-3 500-525 445 Henry Wilson 2002 4-8 600 +/- 559 Farmington High School 1996 12-Sep 500+/- 479

Valley View Community School and Henry Wilson Middle School have adequate physical capacity to accommodate SAU enrollment predictions through for the next several years, however the high school is already functioning at its capacity and is faced with planning to accommodate additional courses to meet increase graduation requirements. The SAU has developed plans to add four additional classrooms to the high school to address space utilization issues. Voters were willing to support overlapping bond issues to build the high school and the Valley View K-3 resulting in large investments in a relatively short period of time. The newness of these buildings is a testimony to the community’s commitment to education. With the exception of space issues at the high school, which are in process of being addressed, the buildings are in good condition and have adequate capacity. After 2010 when the baby boomer effect has diminished and presuming growth will continue at current rate, all the schools will quickly reach capacity.

2.4 Planning Factors in School Performance

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 6 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Farmington’s students perform poorly on standardized tests administered under the New Hampshire Department of Education. In mathematics, Farmington’s third grade students ranked 101st out of 153 districts tested. By the tenth grade, Farmington’s students ranked last among the states 76 districts tested. Similarly, in reading, Farmington’s third grade students ranked 125th among 153 districts tested. By grade 10, Farmington’s students ranked 64th out of 76 districts tested. As a result, Farmington’s schools are among those singled out as “Schools In Need of Special Improvement” by the NH Department of Education.

Table 6-8 Farmington School District Test Results

TESTING: 2003-04 Mathematics Rank Out of Grade 3 101 153

Grade 6 142 144

Grade 10 76 76

Reading Proficiency Grade 3 125 153 Grade 6 141 144 Grade 10 64 76

Source: NH Dept of Education

The table below contrasts the ranking of Farmington’s students with those of surrounding districts. In essentially all categories, Farmington ranked lower than these surrounding districts on standardized testing:

Table 6-9 Comparison of Farmington and Surrounding School District Rankings

Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 10 Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 10 (153 (144 (76 (153 (144 (76 Districts) Districts) Districts) Districts) Districts) Districts) Farmington District 101 141 64 101 142 76 Barrington 125 108 57 117 113 43 Governor Wentworth District 47 50 24 65 26 23 Rochester 106 132 51 93 128 43 Milton 119 100 51 129 122 72

Notes: Farmington District includes Middleton Barrington has an elementary school--High school students are tuitioned to the Dover Schools Governor Wentworth District includes Effingham, New Durham, Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro Source: NH Dept of Education

Standardized testing has generated considerable debate among educators, particularly when schools exhibit sub-par performance, as is the case in Farmington. It is beyond the scope of this master plan to fully decipher precisely why Farmington’s students perform so low on standard testing, but there are some indicators (as noted below) that help explain this performance.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 7 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Farmington Middle School

Table 6-10 Farm ington School Spending

(E le m e n ta ry ) Farm ington State Ave. Difference Difference 2002-2003 6,973.68 7,961.42 -987.74 -12% 2001-2002 5, 640.23 7,321.56 -1 ,6 8 1 .3 3 -23% 2000-2001 5, 266.40 6 ,7 0 5 .1 9 -1 ,4 3 8 .7 9 -21% 1999-2000 4, 512.62 6 ,2 5 4 .4 6 -1 ,7 4 1 .8 4 -28% 1998-1999 4, 281.37 5 ,7 9 3 .1 8 -1 ,5 1 1 .8 1 -26%

(High School) Farm ington State Difference 2002-2003 7,739.86 8,022.55 -282.69 -4% 2001-2002 6, 416.86 7 ,5 0 2 .1 4 -1 ,0 8 5 .2 8 -14% 2000-2001 5, 624.16 7166.55 -1 ,5 4 2 .3 9 -22% 1999-2000 5, 589.08 6 ,8 6 3 .1 4 -1 ,2 7 4 .0 6 -19% 1998-1999 5, 149.24 6 ,6 2 8 .9 1 -1 ,4 7 9 .6 7 -22%

(k -1 2 ) Farm ington State Difference 2002-2003 7,217.50 7,809.49 -591.99 -8% 2001-2002 5, 880.11 7 ,2 3 3 .4 9 -1,353.38 -19% 2000-2001 5, 373.05 6 ,7 3 8 .3 6 -1,365.31 -20% 1999-2000 4, 826.37 6 ,3 5 7 .2 6 -1,530.89 -24% 1998-1999 4, 528.09 6 ,0 0 9 .3 1 -1,481.22 -25%

* Source: NH Dept of Education Farmington spends less per pupil than the state average.3 (Table 6-10) It is worthy to note that Farmington’s spending per student has been improving and the gap between Farmington and the State average has been narrowing. Because Farmington is not an affluent community, it receives significant state aid for education. An additional factor that contributes to test performance is the socio-economic composition of the students. Figure 6-11 reveals that Farmington has a disproportionate burden in the form of special education and economically disadvantaged students.

3 These figures reflect spending—including the amount contributed by State Adequate Education Grants ______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 8 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Table 6-11 Comparative Socio-Economic School Data

% of Students Receiving Reduced or Free Lunch Farmington New Year Farmington State as a % of NH Milton Rochester Durham 1997/98 36.8 15.2 242% 2 7.9 27.6 28.8 1998/99 40.3 17.8 226% 3 0.4 26.1 30.4 1999/00 35.5 16.5 215% 2 8.8 25.6 22.9 2000/01 30.7 15.4 199% 2 9.2 21.5 19.1 2001/02 31.4 15.7 200% 3 4.0 22.8 21.7 2002/03 33.8 16.4 206% 3 1.2 25.4 24.3 2003/04 33.8 17.3 195% 3 5.3 30.9 26.1

Special Education Costs as a % of Budget Farmington New Year Farmington State as a % of NH Milton Rochester Durham 1997/98 17.9 15.2 118% 18.9% 20.4 14.9 1998/99 18.1 15.8 115% 19.40 22 16.4 1999/00 22.0 16.0 138% 20.30 24.3 16.2 2000/01 21.2 16.3 130% 20.70 23.7 16 2001/02 21.3 16.8 127% 21.30 23.3 16.8 2002/03 24.9 17.4 143% 21.30 24.2 18

Source: NH Department of Education Note: New Durham is part of Gov. W entworth School District therefore figures are reflective of entire district.

Lastly, Table 6-12 sets forth data regarding class size and teacher qualifications/salaries for the 2001-02 school year. Farmington compares unfavorably in all of the categories depicted on this table:

• Student-teacher ratios were close to the state average (although Farmington’s has since deteriorated due to budget cuts in the 2003-04 school year, wherein Farmington’s student teacher ratio rose to 23:1); • Farmington has fewer teachers with advanced degrees and • Farmington’s teacher salaries are below average.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 9 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Figure 6-12 Com parative Data, 2001-02 School Year

COMPARATIVE DATA Farmington State Average Class Size Grades 1-2 19 18 Grades 3-4 20 20 Grades 5-8 23 21

Students per: Teacher 15.8 13.7 E d u ca tio n a l S p e cia list 55.3 113.7

Educational Attainm ent of Teachers Percent Bachelor's 74.7 55.2 Percent Master's 23 42.4 Percent Degree beyond M aster's 0 1.4

Teacher Salaries A verage $ 30, 730 $ 40 ,002 Minimum for BA Degree $ 23, 250 $ 25 ,610 - Maximum for BA Degree $ 39, 350 $ 40 ,054

2.5 Schools: Conclusion

The reasons Farmington’s students perform poorly are multi-faceted and probably include (among other possible reasons):

• Farmington tends to spend less per pupil than the typical school district • Farmington’s socio-economic composition is tilted toward students with special needs • Farmington pays sub-par teacher salaries • Farmington has fewer teachers with advanced degrees than the state norm • Farmington’s average class size is larger than typical in the state • Farmington’s adult educational attainment rate is significantly lower than the state • Farmington median household income is lower than the county and state, which impacts residents' ability to raise funds to support the schools. • Farmington responded to residential growth by investing in physical capacity of schools, which left little to invest in improving the quality of the educational programs. Teacher’s salaries or other concerns.

Poor performance does attract the attention of homebuyers, particularly those in the middle and upper income brackets, which can afford homes that pay higher than average taxes. Farmington’s need to improve the value of housing stock is therefore hampered by poor school performance (see Economic Development Chapter).

Besides detracting from citizen’s ability to invest in teachers and educational materials, Farmington’s disproportionate investment in school buildings can hurt overall town planning. An example relates to controlling Farmington’s ability to enact ordinances that would control the rate of new residential growth. State law indicates that if there is room for new students in the buildings, (and if other community facilities have capacity as well) regardless of the quality of the education delivered or the financial burden on taxpayers, Farmington cannot legally impose building permit caps or other growth-rate controls, which could help solve some of the town’s persistent financial problems.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 10 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

3.0 POLICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY

The Farmington Police Department is staffed by twelve full-time officers, who provide around the clock coverage from facilities located in the rear of the Town Hall building on Main Street. Currently staffing meets national standards for a community the size of Farmington, but is often stretched due to injuries, vacations and time spent in court.

The existing Police Department facility needs to be evaluated in terms of both space requirements and function. Evaluation would consider if the facility meets national standards and state certification requirements for police facilities. Deficiencies may include non-secure and environmentally inadequate ammunition and evidence storage facilities; inadequate records storage and retrieval capability, and non-existent separation of juvenile detention, interrogation, and custody facilities. Internal security may be compromised by a lack of secure holding rooms separated from public and administrative functions. Personnel support facilities such as equipment and clothing storage, showers, and kitchen/break room may be inadequate given the size of the department. The town hall addition housing the police department needs evaluation for structural and system related deficiencies. Farmington Police Chief

A new public safety building is tentatively planned to be built in 2010, and further discussed in section 10 later in this chapter.

4.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Farmington Fire Department is housed in its 1976 station on Main Street in downtown Farmington. The department is responsible for fire, rescue and ambulance services in the town. Staffing consists of a full time chief, 3 per diem EMT/FFs to staff the ambulances and provide initial emergency response from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, approximately 40 volunteers make up the bulk of the town’s emergency response team. The Farmington Fire Department has seen a 13% increase in total emergency calls during the period 2003 to 2005. With 68% of the calls during the day, per diem staff provides coverage, 1 to 3 volunteers and mutual aid provide emergency response. Limited daytime staffing contributes to the lengthened response times and a less that acceptable ISO community rating.

Equipment includes the following: Farmington Fire Engine #1 • Three pump trucks (1979, 1991, 2000) • One ladder truck (1988) • One rescue vehicle (1977) • One forestry truck (1989, rehabbed in 2004) • Two ambulances (1997, 2006).

Both Engine 2 and Rescue 2 exceed National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) life-span standards, and experience major operational problems that limit their effectiveness as emergency response vehicles. ______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 11 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Department priorities are to replace engine 2 in the immediate future and to replace the rescue vehicle soon thereafter. Other vehicle replacements are anticipated during the balance of this decade, including engine 1. A vehicle replacement fund has been established to even out the financial burden of the equipment replacement.

A fire station must support the needs of the fire department and the community if serves, and as such must accommodate a diverse range of functions, including housing, administration, training, community education, equipment and vehicle storage and maintenance, as well as storage of hazardous materials. In the thirty years since the Farmington Fire Station was constructed emergency vehicles have become larger, cramping space within the current station, limiting the types of vehicles and equipment that can be deployed, and creating hazardous conditions for the emergency personnel. Plans for the replacement of the Fire Station is discussed further in section 10 later in this chapter. The town also owns two antique fire trucks, which are housed by a local non-profit organization.

5.0 PUBLIC WORKS

The Department of public works is responsible for highway maintenance and solid waste in Farmington. A director, who serves as town road agent, and six full-time employees, staffs the department. The PW department anticipates a near term need for 2 additional employees, a fulltime mechanic and a highway crew person. The department is also responsible for maintenance and inspection of all municipal vehicles, management of town owned sand and gravel supplies, and road salt storage. It operates out of the town garage located on Baldwin Way.

The need for a new garage was identified in the year 2000. In 2006 the town meeting approved expenditure of reserve funds in conjunction with general fund expenditures to remodel and expand the municipal garage. The new facility upgrades the repair and maintenance capacity of the town, and results in fewer equipment failures and downtime. A wash bay will facilitate pressure washing and salt removal, which will result in longer vehicle and accessory equipment life expectancy. It is anticipated that these recent improvement will meet town needs for the next ten to fifteen years. The town of Farmington owns several parcels containing significant sand and gravel deposits, which are used for winter road maintenance, road reconstruction and other municipal construction projects. On average the town extracts approximately 12,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel from these deposits annually. It is anticipated that the open pit adjacent to the town garage contains sufficient deposits to meet the town needs for 10 to 20 years, and that other deposits will be available to meet the town’s needs well into the future. Some of the excess material remaining from site work at the Sarah Greenfield Business Park has been excavated and moved to a storage area closer to the garage for ready use on town projects. Because of their location over the drift aquifer that supplies the town’s drinking water, extra care should be given to future excavation operations in this area, along with restrictions on the types of land use permitted in reclaimed areas. Town owned properties need to be evaluated for earth materials for future projects.

5.1 WATER DEPARTMENT

The water department supplies water to central Farmington and to the Route 11 corridor from two gravel packed well sites, one in central Farmington and one off Route 11 near the Rochester town line. The wells are interconnected and have a combined capacity of approximately 700,000 ______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 12 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 gallons per day, with average usage of 275,000-300,000 gallons per day. So far, water supply from these wells has proven adequate to serve the system’s approximately 1000 customers. In fact, the system retains sufficient capacity to add approximately 1300 new residential users without compromising residential needs or fire protection requirements. Pressure is adequate up to an elevation of about 395 feet. The system experiences an average of one main line failure per year an acceptable level considering the extent of the system. The town will require that developments above 395 feet elevation install their own central booster pump systems if they are allowed to connect to town water.

Two wells have been retired over the years due to water quality. It is unlikely that these wells can be restored to town use without construction of a water treatment plant. No expansion of the service area and no new sources are anticipated in the near future. Farmington has only a lease on the site of the Route 11 well. If this well continues to be productive, the cost of renewing the lease, or purchasing the land will need to be addressed. The town should be planning for the purchase of this or other future well sites to ensure an ongoing supply of quality drinking water. One issue the department faces is that maintaining water mains in private roads are the responsibility of adjacent private homeowners. These responsibilities are not always carefully attended to when privately owned water facilities are created a means for addressing required maintenance should be accomplished prior to approvals given.

Groundwater contamination poses the greatest threat to Farmington’s water supply system. Two wells have been abandoned as a result of industrial contamination and non-point source pollution. Because the remaining town wells draw water from the same drift aquifer running roughly northwest to southeast through the Cocheco River basin it is essential that all existing sources of contamination be identified and closely monitored, and that new activities within the groundwater recharge zone be thoroughly evaluated and designed to provide maximum protection of drinking water resources.

5.2 WASTEWATER

Town sewer serves the central area of Farmington. The town’s treatment plant, built in 1975, is permitted to discharge 350,000 gallons of effluent per day into the Cocheco River. The average historical flow experienced is 225,000 gallons per day. During the spring, when the water table rises, sump pumps in homes and businesses begin to operate and usage peaks at 500,000 gallons per day. Inflow and infiltration during severe storm events can elevate treatment plant inflows to 1,000,000 gallons per day. The Wastewater Department is currently conducting an Inflow and Infiltration study to evaluate the problem. The entire system is gravity fed, with no pumping stations.

The US Environmental Protection Agency issued draft license renewal requirements in October 2006. Farmington’s license renewal will require upgrades to various treatment processes. Significant capital costs will likely be incurred to bring the plant into compliance. A study to evaluate upgrades to the plant has identified several options that bring the town into compliance with EPA license requirements. Additional analysis and evaluation of these options will be necessary before a final decision on upgrades can be made. The town does not plan to increase the areas currently serviced, however developers can extend service to new areas at their expense within the limits of the plant’s capacity for treatment. One issue the department faces is

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 13 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

maintaining sewer mains in private roads. When privately owned sewer facilities are created a means for addressing required maintenance should be established prior to approvals being given.

5.3 SOLID WASTE

Farmington operates a solid waste facility on Cocheco Road that includes an unlined landfill, recycling program, and sludge reclamation. The landfill accepts residential and non-hazardous waste from Farmington residents and businesses. Monitoring wells are installed to ensure that water quality is not compromised.

The solid waste facility operates with 2 full-time and 1 part-time employee, and includes a 2-bay and a 3-bay storage facility, a 1-bay baling facility, and a front-end loader used to spread, compact and bury trash.

A gate is installed at the entrance to reduce unauthorized entry, but without a security fence, the facility is subject to occasional break-ins and unauthorized dumping.

The Public Works Department is in the process of developing a more efficient fee structure and operations plan to ensure that all costs are recovered and that reserves are set aside to cover closure costs.

The town landfill site has been in operation for approximately 50 years, and has the physical capacity to accommodate 20 years of disposal at the town’s current rate of utilization. Due to the potential contamination of groundwater beneath the landfill site, the NH Department of Environmental Services has entered into negotiations with the town to close the facility in 8-15 years. A pay per bag program under which trash must be placed in a bag purchased from the town is used to fund the eventual closure of the landfill. There is currently approximately one million dollars in this fund. CMA Engineering is currently studying the closing plan and costs on behalf of the town. Options for alternatives to dispose of solid waste in the future will be presented to the Board of Selectman for consideration. The completion of clean up and monitoring of the Collins-Aikman disposal site (Cardinal Landfill) is a key factor in the final plans.

5.4 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

The highway department is responsible for maintenance of 66 miles of town roads, numerous bridges, and stormwater management drainage systems. The road crew of seven operates a fleet of one 10-wheel truck, four 6-wheel trucks, a 1997 grader, 1998 front-end loader, 2004 backhoe, one 1-ton dump truck, and one pick-up truck. The fleet is utilized during the summer months for road maintenance, upgrades and repair, and during the winter for snowplowing and sanding operations. The highway department also maintains the village sidewalk system and is responsible for cleaning, sweeping, and striping streets and sidewalks on a regular schedule.

Chapter 8 of the Master Plan covers road construction, rehabilitation and paving in greater detail.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 14 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

6.0 TOWN OFFICES

Town offices are located in the historic former Main Street School at 356 Main Street. The school was originally built in the 1890s. The town occupies the first floor and the School Administrative Union occupies the second floor. The building was renovated in 2002 at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars to accommodate the town and SAU functions and to adapt the building for handicapped access.

The building is generally suitable for town uses, but additional programs and functions continue to be based in this building. The recent additions of a welfare program and expanded planning and code enforcement functions have placed a premium on both space and equipment. The age and condition of the heating and cooling systems create great fluctuations in temperatures and air quality within the building, and waste both energy and money. The town administrator is in the process of investigating grants and low-cost loans to install winterization and other energy saving improvements to the building.

With new and increasing federal, state, local requirements for record keeping, file storage is becoming an issue. Not only does the volume of paper generated take up much needed space, but its weight and distribution within the building must be considered. The town clerks association has begun the task of reviewing the state’s record keeping requirements in hopes of reducing the volume of paper by transferring documents to electronic files. However, space will be required just to store some paper records in an easily retrievable fashion. Given the town’s financial constraints the building is generally perceived as adequate for the immediate future. Should town space needs continue to grow, the most likely solution would be a relocation of the SAU offices and expanding town use to the second floor.

The town also owns several other buildings in downtown Farmington including the Court House and the Town Hall, which has undergone a massive renovation within the past year, thanks in large part to the generous donation of a town resident. The Town Hall houses the Farmington Recreation Department and the Police Department. The facility is used for a wide range of civic and recreational purposes, including town meeting, summer recreation programming, community theater, musical events, and movies. A growing list of groups using these facilities is creating scheduling conflicts. As these conflicts intensify it would be prudent to commission a space use study of all municipal buildings and meeting spaces. A focus on preserving the historic elements of these properties is important to the town and its character.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 15 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

7.0 GOODWIN LIBRARY

In 1927, George Goodwin of Milton donated the funds to build what is now the Goodwin Library. Sixty years later in 1987, local bank owner and philanthropist James Thayer donated money for a wing that doubled the main floor area and added an open space downstairs that will become a new Children’s Room in spring of 2005.

In addition to the library collection on the main floor, the Library is also home to a unique and eclectic collection of Farmington artifacts, papers, pictures, and personal and town histories. The basement area under the original building that house the Farmington Historical Museum is also utilized as the meeting space for the Farmington Historical Society. The top floor of the Library is the home of the Farmington Women’s Club, a civic organization whose members engage in year-round fundraising to provide an annual scholarship as well as financial support to a number of community non-profit organizations.

The Goodwin Library holds almost 17,000 volumes and provides services to almost 2300 registered patrons. In 2004, the library added approximately 1800 new items to its holdings and circulated over 21,000 volumes. As an active participant in the New Hampshire State Library Union Catalog system, the Library is able to provide materials and reciprocal borrowing privileges with over 300 other New Hampshire Libraries.

The Library provides extensive children’s programming including Story-times from 12 months to 3rd grade, a Summer Reading Program, Cartoon Club, Junior Book Discussion, and numerous outreach activities in co-operation with the Farmington Day Care Center, Strafford County Head Start, and the Farmington School District. The Library also has an Adult Book Discussion Group and Adult Writer’s Project. Additional special programming includes the annual Poet’s Tea; participation in the community’s annual Hay Day, and the highly anticipated annual Patron Appreciation Celebration in December; as well as numerous special performers. In 2004 over 1300 children participated in our programs and over 440 community members participated in our adult and family programming.

In 2003 the Goodwin Library was the proud recipient of the Gates Foundation “Computers in the Library “grant. This grant provided four state-of-the- art public access computers as well as many educational databases. Local cable provider Metrocast generously donated high-speed cable Internet access, and local ISP provider Worldpath graciously hosts the Library’s web page and e-mail addresses. . DVDs of Selectmen, School Board, Budget Committee, Planning Board and other Public Meetings are now available for review in the Library. The Library currently provides public access to almost 300 patrons each month as well as offering computer classes through the newly formed Explore Collaborative that is providing adult education and enrichment for Farmington and three other local communities. In 2005 the Library will begin to offer free basic computer classes to the community in addition to those offered by Explore.

In response to a number of growing needs including space issues and accessibility, the Farmington Public Library Association undertook the construction of a handicap entrance in May of 2004. With the completion of the entrance, work began on the Children’s Room.

A Friend’s of the Goodwin Library Group was established in 2004. This non-profit organization is dedicated to helping the library continue to meet its goals by providing financial support, establishing a core of volunteers and promoting library programs and services in the community. ______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 16 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

In 2004 the library was recognized as National Library of the Month on WebJunction, the Gates Foundation web-based journal for libraries. In December the New Hampshire State Library in a joint effort with the national Public Libraries Association, recognized the Goodwin Library for its innovative model of literacy based/mentoring Story-Time format. Library staff will be providing mentoring services to other New Hampshire libraries initiating these new goals of Story-Time service within their own communities.

Goals include expanding both the access and availability of local histories, expansion of high- demand materials such as large-print materials, audio books and classic films, completing the process of updating the facilities and completing an ongoing automation project. Additionally the Library will continue to provide exceptional programming, the latest in best-selling fiction and non-fiction, up-to-date medical, business and scientific information, and access to top-notch technology and databases.

8.0 LOCAL ACCESS CABLE

Metrocast Cable provides cable television service to Farmington. Under the terms of the franchise agreement, Metrocast provides a channel for local public programming. Funding for this local access channel comes in the form of a 2.5% tariff imposed on local cable customers. The funds are used to purchase equipment and part-time staffing. Currently about $32,000 per year is raised. There is a current need for improved equipment (cameras, recording, editing equipment).

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 17 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

9.0 SYNOPIS OF TOWN BUILDINGS

In addition to the above discussion a synopsis of the adequacy of principal town buildings, as measured against various municipalities and national standards, was compiled as part of this master plan, as shown below:

Synopsis of Principal Town Buildings

Location Year Built Square Land Square Feet Comments Feet Area per 1000 (Acres) Population

Fire Station 381 Main Street, Map U06, Lot 25 1976 4,250 1.3 625 2 Floors, 4,250 sf each. First floor: 6 Bays; second floor: open hall with kitchen. Not well planned for contemporary equipment needs

Garage 381 Main Street,Map U06, Lot 25 1900 3,128 460 On Fire Station Site Town and School Offices 356 Main Street, Map U06, Lot 105 1876 11,324 0.67 1,665 Former Elementary School renovated to office use for town on first floor, school district on second Goodwin Library 422 Main Street, Map U05 Lot 212 1928 4,632 0.17 681 No on-site parking. Elevator and handicapped access provided in 2004 Old Courthouse 527 Main Street, Map U05, Lot 2-1 1880 1,008 0.35 148 Attractive, historic building adjacent to community center

Police Station, Recreation Center 531 Main Street, Map U05, Lot 1 1890 6,176 0.33 908 Former Town office Building. Police station is on lower level, rear. Police occupy approximately 2,000 square feet.

Source: Town Assessment Records

This synopsis was abstracted from town assessment records. Several points are worthy of note:

• All of the buildings are in downtown Farmington, which contributes to the vitality of downtown and allows for more convenient interaction among town employees. • With the exception of the fire station, all of the buildings are of historic significance. Except for the fire station, all are at least 75 years old. • The buildings are on small lots (with the exception of the fire station), providing limited on-site parking. On-street parking and use of the municipal lot at the fire station offset this limitation.

9.1 Adequacy of Town Buildings

In prior decades size standards for public buildings were incorporated into master plan studies. One such set of standards that are widely recognized are offered by the Urban Land Institute for communities with under 10,000 population:

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 18 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Standard: Square Feet per 1,000 Farmington Population Current Library 700-800 681 Police 200 294 Fire 250 625

Source: Urban Land Institute, Development Impact Assessessment Handbook, 1994, Pages 91-94

Measured by these standards, Farmington’s police and fire facilities are adequately sized, but its library is too small.

New Hampshire recommends police and fire facilities with over 1,000 square feet per capita for each facility well in excess of the Urban Land Standards. However, standards such as these should be adjusted based on other factors besides population levels, for example, communities may elect to offer various service levels—one community might have a volunteer fire department, while another community might have a fully staffed fire function. This has an obvious impact on the appropriate size of a fire station. A new building is likely to be more efficiently designed than an older structure adapted to town use. The latter is the case in Farmington, wherein a former high school has been adapted to accommodate town and school district offices. Also, facility needs change over time—as is the case with libraries whose requirements have changed dramatically as technology has made more services available in the same amount of space.

Farmington should evaluate the current facilities from the standpoint of their adequacy in providing adequate space for it’s needs given the unique aspects of town buildings and how they are used.

10.0 LAND USE IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY ACTIONS

10.1 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s community facilities and services meet the needs of area residents and contribute to the quality of life in Farmington. Here are a few items to consider related to the community facilities and services in Farmington.

1) School facilities and educational programs are fundamentally linked to the economic health of the community and can support learning for all residents.

2) Should Middleton decide to build a school or send their students to another district, Farmington would achieve significant capacity in its school system, but the cost to Farmington residents is likely to change.

3) The school system’s reputation may have an effect on the type of development that will be attracted to invest in Farmington.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 19 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

4) The Fire Department building, built in 1976, is well positioned in the downtown area, but is in need of updating and expansion.

5) The water system in Farmington has a total capacity of approximately 500,000 gallons per day, with an average usage of only 275,000-300,000 gallons per day.

6) The town will require developments above 395-foot elevations to install their own central booster pump system if they are allowed to connect to the town water system.

7) Water and sewer lines and facilities located in private road areas are the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. This raises an issue that must be dealt with because these responsibilities are not always carefully attended to.

8) The town has commissioned a study to evaluate alternatives for the upgrading of the wastewater treatment plant that must be brought into compliance with the upcoming US Environmental Protection Agency discharge standards.

9) The town landfill promotes recycling rather than disposal to extend the life of the existing facility.

10) There is a potential need for additional municipal office space as the community adds functions. A growing list of groups are using town owned buildings creating scheduling problems.

11) The Police Department has space needs that should be addressed.

12) The library continues to offer a range of programs for residents of all ages that draw people downtown.

13) The local access cable channel helps disseminate town information to the general public, and builds the knowledge base of interested citizens on local issues.

14) Public and private functions require adequate parking.

10.2 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates and improves the existing community facilities and services in Farmington. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Address the space issues at the high school with an understanding that enrollment is likely to fluctuate depending on the rate of growth in Farmington and Middleton. Consideration should be given to the fact that the school may continue to be used to promote lifelong learning opportunities.

2) The school district’s agreement with Middleton will be expiring. Well in advance of the expiration, the town should evaluate the costs and benefits of either continuing or discontinuing that agreement.

3) Work to improve the quality of education being offered through the school system.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 20 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

4) Evaluate the space needs of the Fire Department and the functional capacity of the current building. A Fire Station that meets the needs of the town and reinforces the town’s commitment to keeping municipal facilities as part of the mix of uses in the downtown area would be ideal.

5) The site of the Route 11 well is currently leased. The town should plan to aquire this property and other future well sites to ensure an ongoing supply of quality drinking water.

6) Water delivery systems and sewage handling systems in private roads or on private property should be evaluated to dertermine how to cope with problems that arise at these locations.

7) Formulate a plan for the upgrading of the sewage treatment facility, and how to fund the significant capital costs that will likely be incurred.

8) Encourage commercial and industrial operations to recycle.

9) Stay updated with current waste management advancements.

10) The town should commission a space use study of all municipal buildings, parking and meeting spaces prior to taking any actions to expand, relocate or alter any town facilities.

11) Evaluate the space needs of the Police Department and the functional capacity of current building. A Police Station that meets the needs of the town and reinforces the town’s commitment to keeping municipal facilities as part of the mix of uses in the downtown area would be ideal.

12) Investigate the feasibility of offsite paper record storage.

______Community Facilities Chapter 6- 21 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

Chapter 7 Recreation

Fernald Park Chapter 7 Recreation

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Community Recreation Values and Goals 3.0 Existing Resources 3.1 Town Recreation Sources 3.2 Town Recreation Programs 3.3 Farmington 500 Boys and Girls Club 3.4 Trails in Farmington 3.4.1 Blue Job State Park 3.4.2 Snowmobile Trails 3.5 Class VI Roads 3.6 Public Boat Launches 3.7 Regional Recreation Resources 3.8 Local Analysis of Recreational Resources 4.0 Recreation Trends in New Hampshire 5.0 Land Use Implications and Policy Actions 5.1 Land Use Implications 5.2 Potential Actions

Recreation 7-1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Farmington is within one of New England’s most important recreation areas. Both local residents and tourists fish, boat, bike, picnic, skateboard, hunt, hike, snowmobile, and ski in and around the Farmington area. More people are now participating in a wider range of recreational activities than ever before.

Farmington’s rich natural and cultural landscape provides a wonderful setting, and the four- season climate allows for a diversity of recreational activities. Promoting and encouraging the enjoyment of Farmington’s landscape enhances the quality of life of local residents, and supports tourism in the region. This promotion provides an opportunity for personal health and wellness benefits, for enhancing local economic opportunities, and for portraying Farmington as a prime location between the Seacoast, and the Lakes and White Mountain Regions of New Hampshire for recreation and access to the great outdoors. With increased use of these resources, Farmington must also be mindful of the resource management issues that can arise from increased use of the recreational areas in the community. According to the 2004 Master Plan Survey Farmington residents value the open spaces available to them and 82% would like to see the Town do more to protect these open spaces in Farmington.

2.0 COMMUNITY RECREATION VALUES AND GOALS

The results from the Farmington Master Plan Survey show a strong appreciation and support for open space and recreation in the community. The responses show that 62% of the respondents felt that Town funds should be used for the preservation of open space in Farmington. When asked about encouraging “special events” to bring people into Town, 84% of the respondents said they would like to see such events.

Overall there was great support for additional walking/biking trails. A majority of the responses (73%) favored using existing roads, streets and trails, and public land to create a trail system. This is good news for recreation, transportation, natural resources, and general land use issues. Pursuing the protection of a network of open spaces in Farmington, and creating a network of trails and paths could provide Historic Town Hall additional recreational opportunities and connections, help protect key natural resource corridors, provide additional transportation options, promote health and wellness, and provide access to open space near the developed areas in Farmington.

Recreation 7-2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.0 EXISTING RESOURCES

The Farmington Parks and Recreation Department oversees the Town sponsored programs and activities that take place throughout the community, and maintains the physical infrastructure of the recreation system. The Recreation Department provides a cultural, social, and physical outlet for the Town’s citizens and helps maintain the fabric of the community. Providing opportunities for residents to meet, talk, and have fun is important for the long term health of the community.

3.1 Town Recreation Facilities Gazebo at Fernald Park

The Farmington Parks and Recreation Department maintains the following facilities which are open to the public:

Town Hall Gym – located on Main Street, and part of the original Town Hall building constructed in 1881, the Gym continues to be used for a wide range of activities (basketball, volleyball, senior citizens’ club, dances, etc.) and serves the needs of the community well.

Game Room and Senior Center/Meeting Room - located in an addition to the original Town Hall constructed in 1983. The Recreation Department uses these spaces, the Gym, and the parks for programs that include basketball, volleyball, softball, ice skating, karate, theater, seasonal events, senior citizens’ club, dances, and a variety of other activities.

Fernald Park – located on Central Street this facility includes a bandstand, a skate park, and a ball field. There is ample room available at this park for other forms of recreation and public gatherings.

Memorial Park – located on Main Street, in the northern portion of the downtown area, this park provides a location for recreation and public gatherings.

Edgerly Memorial Park - located on Gray Avenue, just north of Route 75, this park provides a location for recreation and public gatherings. Fernald Park

The Town also has an excellent relationship with the public school, and has access to fields and facilities on the School Property.

Recreation 7-3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.2 Town Recreation Programs

According to the Farmington Parks and Recreation Department, the recreational facilities in Farmington are experiencing a steady increase in use. The Parks and Recreation Department reports that there are currently a wide range of programs, for residents of all ages, available in the community throughout the year. These include the following programs and activities provided by the Department for the residents of the community:

• After School Program (Gr. K-5) • After Hours Classes (Gr. K-8) • Craft Programs, Cooking Programs, Sports, and Trips • Summer Kids Camp • Vacation Camps (Feb. & April) • Toddler Programs (sports, special events) • Toddler/Parent Open Gym • Senior Bingo & Senior Trips (2-3 per month) • Family Nights at Fernald Park (6 weeks in the summer) • Elementary Socials (1 per month) • Junior High Dances • Midnight Madness Trips • Open Adult Basketball • Open Gym grades 4-8 • Farmington Hay Day • Haunted House • Trick or Treat Parade • Toddler Parent Halloween Party • Easter Egg Hunt – Flash Light Egg Hunt • CPR & First Aid Classes • And many other special events & programs

3.3 Farmington 500 Boys and Girls Club

The Farmington 500 Boys and Girls Club is a fifty year- old non-profit organization that provides team sport opportunities to the young people in the community. The club owns a complex of recreational fields on Pleasant Street, and is in the process of developing additional fields on Paulson Road. The club is currently organizing baseball, softball, volleyball, basketball, and soccer teams. The Farmington Parks and Recreation Department does not organize team sports, but instead cooperates with the 500 Boys and Girls Club. 500 Boys and Girls Club Facility

Recreation 7-4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.4 Trails in Farmington

The Farmington Conservation Commission (FCC) is in the process of creating a formal trail system in the community. The only formal public use trails in the community currently are the State multi-use trail, a small walking trail on the school property around the athletic fields, and the winter snowmobile trails. The FCC project will involve working with landowners and user groups in the community to identify a network of trails that will be mapped and maintained for public use year-round. Trail planning and mapping will be completed in 2005 and 2006. Greenway land and easement acquisitions have been underway for several years with taxpayer and grant support.

Some Potential Greenway and Trail Routes Near Downtown

3.4.1 Blue Job State Park

Blue Job’s 1,356 foot summit is the focal point of this 283.6 acre state park located in Farmington on the Strafford Town line. A network of trails loop through the park, but the main trailhead is located in Strafford on 1st Crown Point Road. Adjacent to the park property are two large parcels of state protected conservation land totaling 706 acres. Both of these parcels are monitored by the Conservation and Land Stewardship Program which is part of the NH Office of Energy and Planning.

3.4.2 Snowmobile Trails

Another popular recreational activity in Farmington is snowmobiling. The state maintains a series of trails, but there are also local trails. These trails are primarily on abandoned roads, logging roads, and across private property. The Powdermill Snowmobile Club and the Evergreen Valley Snowmobile Club are both active in the construction and maintenance of trails in the Farmington area.

3.5 Class VI Roads

Class VI roads are those that the Town owns but does not maintain for vehicular travel (although they may be used for vehicular travel). Farmington’s Class VI roads are often used as routes for

Recreation 7-5 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 hiking and biking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, and hunting. There are 8 Class VI roads in Farmington, as shown in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 Class VI Roads Name Mileage Aiken Rd 1 Averill-Trask Rd .5 Haywagon Rd 1.3 Meaderboro Ext .5 Pound Rd 1.6 Russell Lane .6 Scruton Rd 1.3 Sheepboro Rd 1.4

3.6 Public Boat Launches

There are currently 780 water bodies considered ‘Great Ponds’ in the State of New Hampshire and one of them, Baxter Lake, is in Farmington. Most of Farmington’s surface water is in the form of streams, rivers, and wetlands. There is one boat launch on the Cocheco River in Farmington near the entrance to the landfill. Additionally, there are informal canoe take outs and portages throughout the community.

According to RSA 271:20-A, bodies of water greater than 10 acres in size are public waters. RSA 233-A states that the State of New Hampshire must provide one public access site for water bodies 10-100 acres in size, two access sites for lakes 100-500 acres in size, etc. A “public access site” is defined as those launch sites that are owned and or controlled by the State of New Hampshire. There is one public access point, a boat launch owned by the State of New Hampshire, located off of Sampson Road in Rochester. New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) manages the lake access program, and has the responsibility of managing this boat launch facility on Baxter Lake.

3.7 Regional Recreation Resources

Within an hour drive of Farmington, there are numerous State of New Hampshire and State of Maine parks, beaches, forests, fish and wildlife management areas, lakes, local parks, the Great Bay Estuary, and the 773,241 acre White Mountain National Forest. These regional resources provide numerous and varied public recreation opportunities such as camping facilities, hiking trails, skiing, and public access for fishing, boating, swimming and many other recreation opportunities. Towns and organizations also own and operate public parks and forest reserves in the region offering both active and passive pursuits, free and for-a-fee, with some handicapped accessible facilities.

Recreation 7-6 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 3.8 Local Analysis of Recreational Resources

Nationally, communities are providing 4.7 acres of recreational facilities per 1,000 residents. These include active facilities such as ball fields, basketball and tennis courts, and skate parks, but not golf courses and public parks. In a recent study conducted by the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning the average was 5.3 acres per 1,000 residents. This would suggest that Farmington should be aiming for approximately 28 to 30 acres of active recreational facilities. Farmington currently has approximately 26 acres worth of formal recreational facilities giving it an average of 4.6 acres per 1,000 residents. Very close to the national average.

Currently, the majority of these recreational facilities, 15 acres, are being provided by the 500 Boys and Girls Club. How long will this continue, and what facilities are lacking in Farmington? An important next step in Farmington would be to convene a meeting with the town, school, and the Boys and Girls Club to discuss how well the current recreational facilities in Farmington are meeting the demand and to identify what facilities are lacking in the community.

4.0 RECREATION TRENDS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

In 2003 the State of NH completed a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The SCORP explains that more people are participating in recreational activities, partially due to the increase in population, and that people are also participating in a much wider range of activities today than was even the case 10 years ago.

With this in mind it is easy to imagine that the most popular sites will experience greater and greater congestion in the future. This could result in a greater number of conflicts between recreationists vying for use of the same areas at the same times. Access to all recreation sites will become an important management issue. Meanwhile, the number of organized recreation and conservation groups is expected to continue to grow and will have an increasingly larger voice in the management of public land.

According to the State, New Hampshire State Parks have seen an increase in attendance. Current estimates indicate State Parks saw around 6.69 million visitors in 2001. According to the Comprehensive Statewide Trails Study, conducted by the New Hampshire Office of State Planning in 1997, the US Forest Service reports a 23 percent increase in trail use in the White Mountain National Forest between 1974 and 1995. The State also reports that wheeled off- highway vehicle registrations, both in-state and out-of-state, are increasing. Total registrations have more than doubled in the last seven years. Out-of-state registrations have more than tripled. Out-of-state snowmobile registrations are steadily increasing and have more than doubled in the last seven years, while in-state registrations have remained steady. New Hampshire’s waters have also experienced an increase in use with boating registrations doubling between 1980 and 1990, and increasing over 19 percent between 1990 and 2000.

Recreation 7-7 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 According to the findings in the SCORP, many of the most popular activities in New Hampshire are similar to those identified in nationwide studies. Wildlife observation, driving for pleasure, sightseeing, and jogging/running/walking are extremely popular activities. Additionally, these activities show a high frequency of participation. Day hiking seems to be more popular in New Hampshire than the national average.

5.0 LAND USE IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY ACTIONS

5.1 Land Use Implications

Farmington’s existing recreation resources provide area residents and visitors with exceptional opportunities to enjoy the outdoors and exercise. Here are a few items to consider related to the recreation resources in Farmington.

1) Planning for the implementation of an interconnected system of trails within a greenway of protected land will provide recreation, health and wellness, natural resource, transportation, and economic benefits that contribute to the overall “sense of place” in Farmington.

2) Incorporating outdoor recreation more fully as a planning issue within larger discussions of land use and transportation regulations and projects in Farmington will increase the benefits this amenity provides.

5.2 Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates and improves the existing recreation resources in Farmington. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) There is clearly a need, based on the survey responses, for more recreation programs for middle school aged youth, and for other opportunities beyond day care type services for these young people during the summer.

2) The Parks and Recreation Department has been successfully delivering programs and activities, and now must focus on working with others to identify and construct new recreation facilities that will meet the needs of the public.

3) Create a network of multi-use paths, within and around the downtown area, to provide safe access for walking, biking, skiing, and other activities between neighborhoods and key destinations.

4) Create a trail network/greenway plan for the entire town that identifies future trail connections and properties to be protected. These trails and properties should connect to resources in the adjacent communities.

5) Create special events that bring people into Town. Sledding parties, picnics, and festivals promote community pride and build social connections within the community.

Recreation 7-8 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

6) The community must address the long-term stewardship issues of the protected parcels and recreational facilities in Farmington. This may include roles for the various user groups and clubs (i.e. horseback riders, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, etc.) in monitoring properties and trail maintenance.

7) Educate landowners about the benefits of leaving lands open to the public and the liability protections provided by existing laws.

8) Promote the use of education, partnerships, and information-based strategies to manage or avoid conflicts between user groups, and to promote best management practices for different recreational uses.

9) Ensure that recreational opportunities are available to the elderly population and those with disabilities.

Recreation 7-9 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005 Chapter 8 Transportation

NH Route 11

Chapter 8 Transportation

1.0 Introduction 3.3.2 Local Wayfinding 2.0 Existing Transportation Facilities 3.4 Dead-End Roads 2.1 Classification of Highways and 3.5 Multi-Use Trails and Paths Roads 3.6 Public Transportation Facilities 2.1.1 Ownership and 3.6.1 Buses Maintenance 3.6.2 Taxis Responsibility 3.6.3 Rail 2.1.2 Function and Design 3.6.4 Regional and Local 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Airports Trends 3.7 Other Special Transportation 2.3 Pavement Condition Issues 2.4 Bridge Data 3.7.1 Access Management 2.5 Crash Data 3.7.2 Traffic Calming 2.6 Level of Service 3.8 Land Use Implications and 2.7 Land Use Implications and Potential Actions Potential Actions 4.0 Transportation System 3.0 Special Transportation Issues 4.1 The Network 3.1 Workforce Commuting 4.2 Design Standards 3.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities 4.2.1 Gravel Roads 3.2.1 Sidewalks 4.2.2 Scenic Roads 3.2.2 Bicycle Routes 4.3 Land Use Implications and 3.3 Signage and Wayfinding Potential Actions 3.3.1 Signage Along major 5.0 Summary and Conclusions Routes

Transportation 8-1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Farmington’s transportation system is an important component of the quality of life and economic vitality of the community and the region. This is evident in Farmington’s regulation of land use and in its investments in the maintenance and expansion of its infrastructure, both of which play an important role in the evolution of development patterns. Therefore, attention must be given to the impact that public policies have on the interconnected land use and transportation systems. This chapter provides guidance, context, and recommendations for addressing current and future transportation needs. The Land Use and Transportation Cycle To be consistent with the community’s vision, the goal in this section is to strive to meet all of the various transportation needs, while still maintaining and even enhancing the environment and quality of life of Farmington. The transportation infrastructure must be designed to serve local needs, and be compatible with local land use and community character while also accommodating regional transportation needs.

Farmington has a number of transportation systems operating within its borders. While the automobile dominates, much of the downtown is conducive to walking and bicycling. A walkable community is a healthy community for residents, and supports a social and neighborly environment that promotes positive interactions between members of the community. Walkable communities also benefit from a reduced number of automobile trips because some daily tasks can be accomplished as a pedestrian.

Transportation 8-1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Residents’ and visitors’ inter-regional transportation needs are served by automobiles and limited bus service. NH Route 11 passes through the center of Farmington and serves a great deal of the local traffic in the community, but it is also a significant state and regional transportation route.

2.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILTIES

There are approximately 68 miles of roads within Farmington, of which 30 miles are municipally-maintained, 30 miles are private roads, and 8 miles are state-maintained. Of the 30 miles of municipally-maintained roads, 17 miles are paved and 13 miles are gravel. There are also approximately 8 miles worth of Class VI unmaintained roadways in Farmington. The Farmington roadway system can be found on Map 6 in the Appendix.

The major arteries of the road network in Farmington are NH Routes 11, 153, and 75. NH Route 11 was the subject of a major corridor study that explored the relationship between land use and transportation activities along the entire Main Street - Farmington, New Hampshire roadway in Rochester, Farmington, and New Durham. The NH Department of Transportation and Strafford Regional Planning Commission coordinated this effort in 2001, and Farmington was an active participant. The major findings in this effort included:

• An understanding of the relationship between land use and transportation activities; and • An identified need to promote Access Management;

The final report, Route 11 Access Management Study, is available at the Farmington Town Hall, and some of the findings have been included in this chapter.

One tool the Town seems to be missing currently is a “transportation improvement plan.” This is a comprehensive document which includes information on the current system of roadway and sidewalk infrastructure in the community, the condition of these facilities, and a multi-year framework to prioritize and complete the necessary improvements while eliminating spikes in funding requests. This tool could be a major source of information for a capital improvement plan.

2.1 Classification of Highways and Roads

2.1.1 Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility

The State Aid classification system, which is identified in RSA 229-231, establishes responsibility for construction, reconstruction, and maintenance (as well as eligibility for use of

Transportation 8-2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

State Aid funds) between State and Federal agencies, and local municipalities. This classification system also provides a basic hierarchy of roadways. The following is a description of the State Aid system:

Class I - Trunk Line Highways, consist of all existing or proposed highways on the Primary State Highway System, excepting all portions of such highways within the compact sections of cities and towns. The state assumes full control and pays all costs of construction, reconstruction and maintenance of these sections. The portions of the system in compact areas are controlled by the cities and towns under Class IV highways. There are no Class I Highways in Farmington.

Class II - State Aid Highways, consist of all existing or proposed highways on the Secondary State Highway System, excepting portions of such highways within the compact sections of cities and towns, which, again, are classified as Class IV highways. In Farmington this includes New Hampshire Routes 11, 75, and 153.

All sections improved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner are maintained and reconstructed by the State. All unimproved sections, where no state and local funds have been expended, must be maintained by the city or town in which they are located until improved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Transportation.

All bridges improved to state standards on Class II highways are maintained by the State. All other bridges on the Class II system shall be maintained by the city or town until such improvement is made. Bridge Aid funds may be utilized to effect such improvements.

Class III - Recreational Roads, consist of all such roads leading to, and within, state reservations designated by the Legislature. The NH Department of Transportation assumes full control of reconstruction and maintenance of such roads. There are no recreational roads within Farmington.

Class IV - Compact Sections of Highways, consist of all highways within the compact sections of cities and towns. Extensions of Class I (excluding turnpikes and interstate portions) and Class II highways through these areas are included in this classification. Municipalities with compacts are listed in RSA 229:5. Farmington does not have a designated Urban Compact area at this time.

Class V - Rural Highways, consist of all other traveled highways which the city or town has the duty to maintain regularly.

Class VI - Unmaintained Highways, consist of all other existing public ways, including highways discontinued as open highways and made subject to gates and bars, and highways not maintained and repaired in suitable condition for travel thereon for five (5) successive years or more. However, if a city or town accepts from the state a Class V highway established to provide a property owner or property owners with highway access to such property because of a taking under RSA 230:14, then notwithstanding RSA 229:5, VII, such a highway shall not lapse to Class VI status due to failure of the city or town to maintain and repair it for five (5) successive

Transportation 8-3 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

years, and the municipality’s duty of maintenance shall not terminate, except with the written consent of the property owner or property owners.

Scenic Roads, are special town designations of Class IV, V and VI highways where cutting or removal of a tree, or disturbance of a stone wall, must go through the hearing process and written approval of local officials (See RSA 231:157). Farmington has three designated Scenic roads at this time, Poor Farm Road, Reservoir Road, and River Road.

Scenic Byways, The New Hampshire Scenic and Cultural Byways Program was established in 1992 under RSA 238:19, "... to provide the opportunity for residents and visitors to travel a system of byways which feature the scenic and cultural qualities of the state within the existing highway system, promote retention of rural and urban scenic byways, support the cultural, recreational and historic attributes along these byways and expose the unique elements of the state's beauty, culture and history." There are no Scenic Byways in Farmington at this time.

New Hampshire’s Scenic and Cultural Byways program is one of many now in place nationwide, and is eligible for Federal Highway Administration Scenic Byway funds. The only regulation attached to Scenic and Cultural Byways designation is "no new billboards."

2.1.2 Function and Design

Section 4.1 of this chapter describes the classification of each roadway in Farmington. Section 4.2 then shows the existing Farmington Road Dimensional Standards, and a series of suggested street design standards. Local roads have been defined as major local, minor local, and minimum local. The stated purpose of each road type should be the basis for its design, use, and maintenance requirements. Local roads serving smaller residential developments could be reduced in scale to enhance neighborhood character, slow traffic speeds, reduce construction and maintenance costs, and still provide safe access.

On state routes the Town of Farmington should work with the NHDOT to ensure that the designs of any proposed improvements are “Context Sensitive Solutions” (CSS). The intent of CSS is to ensure that roads are not designated solely by the requirements of motor vehicle traffic. Transportation should preserve the scenic, historic, and environmental resources of the places it serves, and allow for a variety of modes beyond motor vehicles.

2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Trends

Traffic circulation within and through Farmington is probably the most important transportation issue facing the community. Congestion during peak periods is widely known to residents. The structure of the local highway network requires local and regional travelers to share, to a significant degree, the major arterials in Farmington. Local traffic consists mainly of trips from residential areas in and around downtown Farmington and neighboring communities to local businesses and services. These commercial trips generate substantial turning movements. The combination of local trips and through trips on the major arterials often results in slow traffic, capacity constraints, delays, and an increase in vehicle collisions.

Transportation 8-4 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

From 1982 to 2001 traffic volumes increased from an average of 5,000 vehicles per day on Route 11 at the New Durham town line to an average of 12,000 vehicles per day. This represents a 140% increase in traffic volume. Meanwhile, traffic volumes on Route 11 at the Mad River Bridge are lower with only 8,800 vehicles per day reported in 2000. This suggests that each portion of Route 11 in Farmington is serving a different purpose in the daily traffic patterns of residents and commuters. Central Street experienced a 63% increase in daily traffic volumes from 1993 to the year 2000. South Main Street experienced a 20 – 30% increase in average daily traffic at two locations during the 1990s. On the majority of Farmington’s roadways traffic volumes have remained fairly stable over the past 20 years with some net increases. Figure 8-1 and Table 8-2 illustrate these and other increases in traffic volumes.

Figure 8-1 Traffic Counts

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 1990 1997 2000/2001

NH 11 at New Durham Town Line South Main Street North of NH 11

Transportation 8-5 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Overall, traffic in Farmington has grown as the population in the region has increased over the past 20 years. Traffic volumes vary somewhat over the course of a year in Farmington due to seasonal fluctuations that affect the tourism industry. There are several peaks in annual traffic volume, which generally fall within mid-summer, and fall. These peaks correspond to the summer vacation period, and fall foliage. Table 8-2 show Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts for Farmington in greater detail.

Main Street – Farmington, New Hampshire

Table 8-2 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts for the Farmington Area LOCATION 1982 1988 1990 1993 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 NH 11 (HENRY WILSON HWY) AT NEW DURHAM TL 5000 6600 8100 7200 9800 12000 NH 75 (TAPPAN ST) NORTH OF NH 11 1800 1500 1700 1600 NH 75 (CENTRAL ST) SOUTH OF MAIN ST 3000 4400 4900 SOUTH MAIN ST EAST OF PLEASANT ST 8100 9700 MEETING HOUSE HILL RD AT RATTLE SNAKE RIVER 630 840 NH 11 (HENRY WILSON HWY) AT MAD RIVER BRIDGE 7500 9200 8800 OLD BAY RD OVER COCHECO RIVER 440 460 530 SPRING ST OVER COCHECO RIVER 660 830 780 NH 75 (CENTRAL ST) OVER COCHECO RIVER 3600 3500 3800 NH 153 (SOUTH MAIN ST) NORTH OF NH 11 4500 6100 8100 6000 RIVER RD OVER MAD RIVER 200 480 130 NH 75 (ELM ST) OVER DAMES BROOK 2600 3400 WATSON CROSS RD OVER COCHECO RIVER 1400 1500 2000 *Source: NH Department of Transportation

Transportation 8-6 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

2.3 Pavement Condition

The New Hampshire Department of Transportation evaluates all state roadways and the Interstate System using a Ride Comfort Index (RCI) of 1 to 5. The rating is based on the roughness of the surface and the amount of work needed to correct it. A majority of NH Route 11, NH Route 75, and NH Route 153 are classified by the RCI as needing some work, but are generally considered to be in good condition. Several small sections on all three routes are classified by RCI as needing no work at all, and a few small sections are classified as needing major work. These improvements are handled by the NHDOT.

2.4 Bridge Data

There are seventeen major bridges within the public road network in Farmington, and three bridges on privately maintained roads. The Old Bay Road Bridge and the Paulson Road Bridge were repaired during the summer of 2004 and will be inspected by the NHDOT. The other bridges range in size and condition. There is one box culvert in Farmington located on Elm Street for the Dames Brook.

Table 8-3 Municipal and State Maintained Bridges

Bridge Location Waterbody Condition Central Street Cocheco River Unknown Cocheco Road Cocheco River Unknown Flagstone Ave. Mad River Unknown Hornetown Road Mad River Unknown Old Bay Road Cocheco River Excellent Paulson Road Pokomoonshine Brook New Deck, Poor Structure Reservoir Road Berry’s River Unknown River Road Mad River Good Route 11 Mad River Unknown Route 11 @ UPS Store Rattlesnake Brook Unknown Sheepsboro Road Berry’s River Good South Main Street Cocheco River Unknown Spring Street (Lower) Cocheco River Unknown Spring Street (Upper) Ela River Unknown Tappan Street Mad River Unknown Ten Rod Road Mad River Good West Milton Road Dame Brook Replaced in 2002

Transportation 8-7 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Table 8-4 Privately Owned and Maintained Bridges

Bridge Location Waterbody Condition Entrance to Pike Industries Cocheco River Unknown Skyview Drive Kicking Horse Brook New (2004) Farmington Ridge Dames Brook Unknown

2.5 Crash Data

In 1995 there were more than 102 crashes on Farmington’s roadways (see Table 8-5). There were two accidents in 1995 that resulted in fatalities, and two accidents that injured pedestrians. By 1999, the annual number of crashes decreased slightly to 97 throughout Farmington, and no fatal accidents were recorded, but a pedestrian was injured on Central Street. The crash data for 1999 shows that the largest number of crashes were still on NH Route 11, but crashes were reported on roadways throughout Farmington. In 2002 at least 135 crashes occurred in Farmington, and four crashes resulted in fatalities. Three of these fatalities took place on NH Route 11. From 1995 through 2002 nine people were killed on Farmington’s roadways. A pedestrian was also injured on Hornetown Road in 2002.

Table 8-5 Farmington Crash Data 1995, 1999 & 2002

Farmington Crash Data 1995 1999 2002 Total Accidents 102 97 135 Pedestrian Accidents 2 1 1 Fatalities 2 0 4 * Source: NH Department of Transportation

Roadway safety is determined by a number of factors, such as road condition, traffic volume and speed, the number of access points and intersections, driver behavior, and vehicle condition. All of these factors are used to evaluate potential for accidents. Referred to as crashes by the Department of Transportation, crash data is commonly used to identify hazardous situations and plan for necessary improvements. In New Hampshire a reportable crash is an incident that causes over $1,000 of damage or results in a personal injury. As a result the crash data reported in this section will not reflect every crash that has occurred in Farmington in a given year. Local police records may contain some additional crash data from minor incidents.

2.6 Level of Service

Traffic congestion in New Hampshire is measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS) with LOS A being free flowing and LOS F being heavily congested. Level of Service is determined by comparing the volume of traffic on a roadway section to the roadway's capacity to handle the volume (based on traffic engineering procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual). The

Transportation 8-8 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

capacity is based on roadway factors that affect congestion, including alignment, lane and shoulder width, and the number of access points, among others.

NHDOT has calculated the LOS for the major state highways, including many of the state maintained and numbered routes, based on 2002 traffic data. To ensure uniformity, the traffic volumes utilized for comparison purposes were current weekday evening peak hour volumes (normally an example of a high recurring peak condition) throughout the state. In Farmington NH Route 11 was evaluated and received a low rating (LOS E and F) indicating that congestion is a major issue on this stretch of highway. NH Route 75 received a high rating (LOS A and B) indicating little if any congestion on this roadway. NH Route 153 has not been evaluated as part of this program.

In addition to traditional highway improvements, a number of non-highway related transportation projects are being implemented incrementally to address congestion and to achieve the overall goal of moving people, goods, and services more efficiently throughout New Hampshire. NHDOT, in cooperation with Maine DOT and the Vermont Agency of Transportation, is leading an effort to implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies in the Northern New England region. According to the US Department of Transportation, “ITS represents the next step in the evolution of the nation's entire transportation system. As information technologies and advances in electronics continue to revolutionize all aspects of our modern-day world, from our homes and offices to our schools and even our recreation, they are also being applied to our transportation network. These technologies include the latest in computers, electronics, communications and safety systems.”

The goal is to manage and operate the highways more efficiently and provide timely information to the motorists about travel conditions, delays, and tourism opportunities. Such ITS technologies will assist in addressing congestion, and will extend the life of many roadways by preserving their capacity. According to the NHDOT thirty-one ITS stations will be deployed throughout New Hampshire within the next few years. This network will help regulate inform and direct travelers passing through the Farmington region.

2.7 Land Use Implications and Potential Actions

Land Use Implications

Farmington’s existing transportation facilities are a critical resource for area residents and visitors, and for commerce in the region. Here are a few overall considerations related to the existing transportation facilities in Farmington:

1) Farmington’s roadways should be designed and constructed based on the role they fill in both the local road system and the regional system. Roads should provide the necessary access while controlling the speed of vehicles. If the role of the road changes over time then the design of that roadway should change accordingly.

Transportation 8-9 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

2) High traffic volumes on Farmington’s major routes often push traffic onto other local streets that have not been designed to handle extra capacity or control the speed of this thru traffic.

3) Strip development and extensive curb cuts along major roadways cause friction and conflict points for through traffic. This reduces the ability of the roadway to handle the level of traffic it was designed to carry, and often leads to safety deficiencies, and the need for expensive roadway expansion earlier than expected.

4) Farmington’s roadways should not be designed for motor vehicle traffic alone. Incorporating Context Sensitive Solutions into Town and State roadway projects, to the extent practical, should help preserve some of the scenic, historic, and environmental features within the project areas.

Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates and improves the existing transportation facilities in Farmington. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) There is currently a need for more comprehensive traffic count data in Farmington. This is especially true in the downtown area. Data on the volume of trucks on Farmington’s roadways would also help identify the number, frequency, and destination of these vehicles. The Town should work with the Strafford Regional Planning Commission and the NHDOT as they plan the location and timing of future traffic counts in Farmington.

2) Roadway improvements and future road construction should be designed to control the flow of traffic, to reduce the number of access points to the roadway, and to promote connections between adjacent commercial properties. This will help preserve the capacity of Farmington’s major roadways without making them unnecessarily large, and will reduce the number of conflict points where crashes can occur.

3) The Town of Farmington should work with the NHDOT on Context Sensitive Solutions for roadway improvements in the community to ensure that roads are not designated solely by the requirements of motor vehicle traffic, but also preserve the significant resources of the places it serves, and allow for a variety of modes beyond motor vehicles.

4) The Town of Farmington should develop a “transportation improvement plan” to guide future improvements to the Town maintained portions of the transportation system. This comprehensive document includes information on the current system of roadway and sidewalk infrastructure in the community, the condition of these facilities, and a multi-year framework to prioritize and complete the necessary improvements while eliminating spikes in funding requests. All of the suggested improvements should also be consistent with other transportation objectives in the community.

5) The Town of Farmington should determine the condition of municipally maintained bridges, and design a plan for bridge maintenance.

Transportation 8-10 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

6) Consider posting bridges on Class VI roads as “Pass at your own risk.”

7) Consider posting Class VI roads as “Unmaintained Road. Pass at your own risk.”

3.0 SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

3.1 Workforce Commuting

According to the 2000 Census, Farmington has 2,741 residents over the age of 16 that are part of the work force. When looking at the commuting data for these workers we see that the mean travel time for Farmington workers is 27.6 minutes. This is comparable to the New Hampshire average of 25.3 minutes, and the national average of 25.5 minutes. Table 8-6 shows the distribution of workers by mode of transportation.

Table 8-6 Modes of Transportation

Percent of Percent of Percent of Mode of Transportation Farmington New Hampshire U.S. Workers Workers Workers Drive Alone 79.5% 81.8% 75.7% Carpool 15.2% 9.8% 12.2% Public Transportation .3% .7% 4.7% Walk 1.6% 2.9% 2.9% Work at Home 2.0% 4.0% 3.3% Other Means .1% .8% 1.2% Source: US Census 2000

Farmington’s distribution of commuters by mode of transportation is very similar to the national averages in all categories except public transportation and walking. It is understandable that Farmington’s figures for public transportation would be lower than the national average, considering the limited public transportation in the Farmington area compared to other regions of the U.S. that are more conducive to mass transit. The number of residents that Coast Bus –Farmington, NH walk to work is also low, but the higher percentage of residents carpooling indicates a very positive trend.

Transportation 8-11 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

3.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities

3.2.1 Sidewalks

The only significant sidewalk network in Farmington occurs in the downtown. Pedestrian movement in the downtown is a critical mode of transportation, and a form of recreation. It is key to the quality of life, economic, and physical health of the community. Increased pedestrian activity removes vehicle trips from the roadways, improves air quality, reduces demand for parking, and promotes social interactions.

To support this, Farmington’s streets and intersections should be designed to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian access. Below is an example Pedestrian Crossing of a crosswalk that includes a “bump out” or “neck down” area within the on-street parking strip that allows the pedestrian to be seen more clearly by motorists, and shortens the distance that must be crossed. Neck downs are also ideal for intersection applications.

There are numerous safety issues associated with specific segments of sidewalks throughout the community, including minimal separation from travel lanes, multiple and wide curb cuts, and handicapped accessibility constraints. Navigating the strip commercial areas of Farmington as a pedestrian is an even greater safety concern. The Town should create guidelines for the design and construction of sidewalks. These guidelines can be used for improvements in the downtown area, in new subdivisions near the downtown, and in developments that are not served by the school bus.

3.2.2 Bicycle Routes

State designated bicycle routes are located along portions of Old Bay Road, Middleton Road, Chestnut Hill Road, Meeting House Hill, and Ten Rod Road. However, none of the designated routes directly access the downtown area. This should be changed to welcome and encourage bicyclists into the downtown. Over the years there have been accidents involving bicycles and cars. A network of bicycle lanes along major roads would greatly enhance rider safety and use, and should serve riders of varying abilities. In the downtown area the bicycle lanes could be incorporated into the existing roadway as a travel lane between the on-street parking area and the motor Example of Bike Lane with On-Street Parking

Transportation 8-12 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

vehicle travel lane. This will also provide traffic calming benefits in the downtown area In order to create such a network, the Town of Farmington will have to continue to work closely with the NHDOT, which is responsible for the state maintained corridors and the creation of the designated bicycle routes in New Hampshire. Bicycle traffic could also be accommodated on multi-use paths through the downtown area.

The placement of bicycle racks or lockers within the downtown area, and at retail and employment locations throughout Farmington should be encouraged. There is a need to provide a safe location for bicycles to be secured if the community wishes to encourage this form of transportation and recreation.

3.3 Signage and Wayfinding

Farmington’s signage and wayfinding systems should direct travelers to their destination safely and efficiently, and contribute to the identity of the community. There are several layers of signage, (including statewide, regional, and local) and multiple layers of wayfinding (e.g., directional, informational, vehicle-oriented). Each of these levels and layers must be well coordinated in order to effectively serve visitors to the community. These signs should be integrated with Farmington’s transportation and economic development infrastructure. The following are fundamental objectives of a signage and wayfinding system for Farmington:

• Identify the routes and destinations that travelers need to get to; • Identify important decision points along each route that will be important to travelers; and • Provide accurate information, in a legible and consistent format, at key locations along each route. • Construct attractive signs that are consistent in size, materials, and design depending on character of the area they are located in.

3.3.1 Signage Along Major Routes

Signage along state routes (NH Routes 11, 75, and 153) provide the necessary information to keep travelers on the routes and to direct travelers to many destinations.

3.3.2 Local Wayfinding

A variety of signage is used in Farmington, including: • Street signs; • Welcome/Gateway signs; • Downtown Farmington signs; and • Directional signs.

Most of the signs are in fair to good condition, but having effective signage requires a commitment to repairing and replacing signage regularly.

Transportation 8-13 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

3.4 Dead-End Roads

Farmington’s land use boards discourage the use of cul-de-sacs unless there is a physical constraint on the site that makes it necessary. Overall, the town encourages connections to existing roadways, or the provision for future connections.

There are several advantages to this, including dispersement of traffic, improvement of emergency access, and the ability to loop utility systems. Provisions should be made in the town’s land use regulations to facilitate these connections where feasible through easements for future use or actual construction. Connections should also be encouraged on existing dead-end streets where possible. In order to mitigate this improved access, the town should consider the value of traffic calming design features such as narrower roads, street trees, and speed tables to name a few. These features help control the thru traffic by controlling speeds, and can enhance the character and function of the roadway as a feature of the neighborhood.

3.5 Multi-use Trails and Paths

There are a multitude of trails and paths in Farmington serving walkers, hikers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, cross-country skiers, and snowmobilers. Some of this network is within the Blue Job State Forest, but much of the network is informal and privately owned, with no formal agreements for continued use or signage.

One of the State’s multi-use “rail trails” heads north, within inactive and abandoned segments of the rail corridor, along NH Route 11 on the old Boston and Maine rail line. A trailhead exists on Meetinghouse Hill Road, and on Route 11 near State Multi-Use “Rail Trail” Coastal Materials.

The Farmington Downtown Greenbelt is an initiative in the community that has been planned to connect the downtown area to the Paulson Road fields and the business park. The network of trails and protected land could eventually connect to the Town Forest and commercial areas on Route 11. This would provide a range of transportation and recreation options that also support natural resource protection, public health benefits, and build a sense of community.

Transportation 8-14 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Farmington Downtown Greenbelt Plan The only formal motorized use trails in Farmington are snowmobile corridors. The Powder Mill Snowmobile Club and the Evergreen Valley Snowmobile Club manage and maintain these trails.

3.6 Public Transportation Facilities

Public transportation service in Farmington benefits the entire community. Public transportation reduces the number of vehicles on the road, and offers an alternative to individuals that may otherwise not have adequate transportation. Transportation alternatives assist in improving the regional air quality by encouraging the reduction of exhaust emissions through the reduction of the number of vehicles on the road.

3.6.1 Buses

Fixed route bus service is provided within Farmington, and to points south, by the Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Transportation (Coast). The current route provides access to a number of communities including Dover and Portsmouth where access to the Northeaster rail service and other bus services is available.

3.6.2 Taxis

There is taxi service provided in Farmington by a company out of Rochester, NH. Transportation is available on demand and service is provided on a 24-hour-a-day basis to any location in New England.

Transportation 8-15 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

3.6.3 Rail

There is one rail right-of-way in Farmington. The Boston to Maine right-of-way passes through Farmington to points north and south. The right-of way is now owned by the State of New Hampshire and the rails have been removed, but it was active on a limited basis until 1988. The Town should do all that it can to preserve the integrity of this corridor. The right-of-way is now used as a year round multi-use trail, but its protection preserves the possibility of restoring rail to this region if it becomes a viable option again in the future.

3.6.4 Regional and Local Airports

There is no regularly scheduled air service in Farmington. The region relies on commercial and private aircraft providing service through a variety of airports in New Hampshire and Maine.

Skyhaven Airfield

Located in Rochester, three miles southeast of the downtown area, this facility contains one 4,000 foot long asphalt runway that is 100 feet wide. The Airfield has limited services available to pilots including fuel, equipment service, and tie downs.

Manchester Airport

The Manchester Airport is one of the closest major facilities, with a wide range of airlines operating regularly scheduled flights. This facility has two runways; one is 9,000 feet long and 150 feet wide, and the other is 7,700 feet long and 150 feet wide. Both runways were recently extended to these lengths and the facility is growing quickly. Manchester is also one of New England’s largest cargo airports, with FedEx, UPS, and Airborne Express facilities on site. The FAA operates a 24-hour Air Traffic Control Tower on site. The Airport is owned by the City of Manchester, and is operated by the City of Manchester Department of Aviation. The airport is currently handling 3.4 million passengers a year, and is projected to handle 6 million passengers annually within ten years’ time.

Pease International Tradeport

Pease International Tradeport is located at the former Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth and Newington, New Hampshire. It encompasses 3,000 acres and has one runway 11,321 feet long and 150 feet wide. The Pease Development Authority operates the Tradeport. The Tradeport handles cargo, corporate, general aviation, and limited passenger service. Pan American Airlines began scheduled passenger service to the Orlando, Florida area from the Tradeport in 1999. The Pease Development Authority is actively seeking to encourage international passenger charter travel, based on its runway length and proximity to recreational and cultural amenities.

Transportation 8-16 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Portland International Jetport

The Portland International Jetport, like many community airports, had its beginnings as a flying fan’s private field. Today, the facility serves nearly 1.4 million passengers a year, flying on the most modern equipment of most of the major airlines. The primary runway is 6,800 feet long and 150 feet wide, and the secondary runway is 5,001 feet long and 150 feet wide. The City of Portland recently spearheaded a master planning effort for the Jetport, because of its economic development value for the City and southern Maine, that will guide the growth of this facility into the future.

3.7 Other Special Transportation Issues

The trends in commuting and transportation that have emerged for the Farmington region reflect many of the transportation trends found nationwide. The number of cars on the road and the vehicle miles traveled have increased at a greater rate than the general population. The cumulative impacts of this increased automobile dependence include: traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, and higher taxes and tolls to pay for new highway projects. Social and aesthetic impacts include: less cohesive neighborhoods, lost open space, and an increase in sprawling strip commercial development. It is important to remember the strong relationship that exists between Farmington’s land use and transportation systems. Action within one system will have a direct impact on the other. Focusing on the community’s strengths presents opportunities to improve pedestrian connections, coordinate existing bus links, and create shuttle service to points south to further improve how Farmington’s existing transportation system functions.

During the NH Route 11 Corridor Study the following topics were considered of great importance to the safety and functionality of the transportation system.

3.7.1 Access Management

Access Management is the process of managing the placement of driveways on roadways, especially on those roadways classified as arterials. Arterial highways are similar to limited access freeways in that their primary function is to move people and goods over long distances quickly and efficiently; however, arterials do not have the benefit of strict access controls to adjacent parcels that limited access highways have. The speed, volume, and safety of traffic on an arterial is greatly reduced by vehicles entering and exiting side streets and driveways. In general, access management policies involve the regulation of the number of driveways, the design and placement of driveways, and the design of any roadway improvements needed to accommodate driveway traffic.

3.7.2 Traffic Calming

When traffic congestion reaches a saturation point, usually during the peak hour, motorists often seek alternative routes through neighborhoods. Traffic calming techniques can be utilized to slow down

Transportation 8-17 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004 and control traffic on streets where it is necessary for traffic and pedestrians to co-exist. The term traffic calming is often described as the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use on a roadway. However, the term "traffic calming" also applies to a number of transportation techniques developed to educate the public, and provide awareness to unsafe driver behavior.

Traffic calming techniques often include police enforcement and education, speed humps and other devices, narrow and curved streets, and landscaping. Farmington is already employing a series of traffic calming techniques in the downtown including on-street parking, crosswalks, and narrow back streets. There are still opportunities for traffic calming improvements throughout the downtown, and along many of the rural roads in the community. This Gateway Traffic Calming Concept for gateway traffic calming sketch is from Downtown Farmington – Plan NH Charrette 1998 the 1998 Farmington Design Charrette sponsored by Plan NH. This image shows how a small island, or common, can be integrated into the roadway to create a gateway to the downtown. This is a very useful traffic calming technique combined with narrower travel lanes and landscaping. The driver is given a message that they are entering a very different and special place. The Farmington Charrette also provided some ideas on pedestrian circulation, street trees, gateway landscaping, and other techniques that also provide traffic calming benefits. The image below shows some of the possibilities for the downtown area.

Transportation 8-18 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

This concept plan for downtown Farmington was created during the 1998 Plan NH Charrette. It suggests the use of gateway entrances to a downtown complete with sidewalks, street trees, and other traffic calming elements that also encourage pedestrian traffic and reinforce the visual appeal of Farmington.

Transportation 8-19 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

3.8 Land Use Implications and Potential Actions

Land Use Implications

Farmington’s transportation modes and infrastructure play an important role in the quality of life of the community. An interconnected transportation system provides travelers with options as they navigate between destinations. This allows traffic to disperse, allows alternative transportation modes, and may reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by area residents. Here are several items to consider related to the various transportation resources in Farmington.

1) Signage and wayfinding are important components of the transportation system and can be instrumental in directing traffic to available parking resources. Poor signage leads to confusion and missed opportunities for visitors, and has an impact on the safety and efficiency of the roadway network.

2) Pedestrian and bicycle trips reduce traffic on the roadways, promote public health, and have less impact on the environment. Farmington’s current sidewalks, paths and trails play a limited role in the community’s transportation system, but have the potential to accommodate a greater number of trips within the community.

3) Local public transportation services are limited. Nodes of development that generate a higher number of potential riders at one location (such as downtown) are more conducive to public transportation than low density strip development. Site design guidelines for developments that include provisions for pedestrian circulation and public transportation can effectively enhance the use of alternative transportation and reduce the use of single occupant automobiles.

4) Access management techniques benefit adjacent land uses and can enhance the character and safety of the corridor. The primary goal of implementing access management policies is to prevent the loss of roadway capacity due to development along arterials by reducing turning movements that conflict with through traffic.

5) Traffic calming techniques would provide an option to the community for protecting the safety and congeniality of Farmington’s neighborhoods, without excluding traffic.

Potential Actions

There are an array of possible actions the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates existing and future transportation modes and infrastructure in Farmington and their land use implications. This section will be used to identify the specific actions for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the existing signage and wayfinding systems. Provide visible and high quality signage with accurate information in a consistent format to direct travelers to the routes and destinations the community has identified. Commit to an ongoing program of signage repair and replacement.

Transportation 8-20 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

2) Accommodate walking as a key mode of transportation in the downtown by maintaining and enhancing existing sidewalks, adding new sidewalks to the network, and requiring sidewalks in new developments.

3) Include required provisions for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the zoning, site plan review, and subdivision regulations.

4) Apply for Transportation Enhancement Funds, through the NH Department of Transportation, for the construction of additional sidewalks and multi-use paths along state routes and elsewhere in Farmington.

5) Work with local transit providers to educate the public on how they can better access public transportation, and all of the economic, social, and environmental benefits of public transportation.

6) Require access management in the Town land use ordinances and regulations. Discuss these requirements with the NH Department of Transportation and consider signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department. This will ensure better coordination over future curb cuts. Implement access management improvements through municipal roadway projects, and the voluntary efforts of property owners to:

• Reduce the number of curb cuts along arterials by increasing frontage requirements or the required distance between driveways, and encourage the use of common driveways.

• Encourage the development of service roads parallel to arterials that allow for access to adjacent commercial developments. Depending on the roadway, determine whether buildings, parking, and signs should be set back from the road sufficiently to allow for a future parallel frontage road, or moved closer to the roadway with all access from the rear of the lots.

• Require connections to adjacent developments and other local roads, not just the collector or arterial roadway to allow employees and customers to move from site-to-site without repeatedly entering and exiting the arterial.

• Require developers to consider their plans within the context of the community and regional roadway system.

• Place parking behind or beside buildings and screen parking when possible to make the building the focal point of the destination. Reduce the front setback for these commercial structures, and use green spaces to articulate the differences between driveways, parking, and pedestrian areas.

• Allow for pedestrian access between commercial developments. Crossing points for pedestrians should be across driveways rather than through parking areas.

Transportation 8-21 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

• Orient sites to accommodate pedestrian patterns efficiently, especially in pedestrian intensive areas like the downtown, rather than forcing pedestrians to conform to the design. • Non-residential driveway entrances should be designed to prevent vehicles on the arterial from backing up while waiting to access the site. By providing adequate depth or driveway throat length at the curb cut access, vehicles are allowed sufficient maneuvering space on-site to move away from the entrance and allow other vehicles to efficiently and safely enter or exit the site. • Vehicular and pedestrian traffic should be separated as much as possible. Foot traffic should be permitted to access buildings without crossing driveways or excessive parking areas.

7) Implement traffic calming techniques on new roadway projects and on existing roadways when possible. This includes:

• Narrowing streets – Wide streets often encourage motorists to drive faster. Extending curbs, eliminating multiple lanes, and adding bicycle lanes can help reduce speeds on existing roadways. Farmington’s street design standards should incorporate these traffic calming elements. • Breaking up straight-aways – Straight-aways on roads encourage speeding. On existing roadways reductions in speed can be obtained by making physical alterations such as speed humps, speed tables, rumble strips, and traffic circles that require motorists to deviate from a straight line. • Re-aligning and re-designing intersections to be more pedestrian friendly should also be considered. “Neck downs” can be added to decrease the width of road required by pedestrians to cross, and at signalized intersections the timing can be changed to add more walk time while traffic is stopped.

8) Changes to Farmington’s land use regulations should allow more mixed-use development so that daily activities are integrated rather than separated. Activities that are separated require vehicle trips between zones. Mixed-use development can be successful in downtown and commercial corridor locations.

9) Work with local employers to encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for employment centers. (i.e. staggering shifts and creating car pools)

Transportation 8-22 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

4.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

4.1 The Network

As Farmington’s roadways are maintained, improved, or expanded, it is important to recognize their function in the overall transportation system. The design of the roadway should then reflect its function. Below is an inventory of all of Farmington’s roadways by functional classification. The standards that were used for this classification can be found in Table 8-9 Street Design Standards in Section 4.2 of this chapter. These standards include five roadway classifications (Minimum Local, Minor Local, Major Local, Collector Street, and Arterial Street) that each meet the needs of the roadway network by serving a specific number of dwelling units and daily traffic needs. Based on the number of cars using the roadway, and its role in the network, there are specific design specifications that reflect its function. These include surface width, design speed, grade, sight distance, and other specifications identified in Table 8-9. Over time, as development continues and traffic patterns shift, some roadways will begin to function in very different ways and this inventory will need to be revisited.

Table 8-7 Inventory of Farmington’s Roadways by Functional Classification Arterial

NH RT 11 NH RT 153

Collector

CENTRAL ST CHARLES ST CHESTNUT HILL RD ELM ST GOVERNORS RD MAIN ST MEADERBORO RD SPRING ST TEN ROD RD

Major Local Street

BAY RD BUNKER ST CAMELOT SHORE DR CIVIC ST COCHECO RD CROSS ST DICK DAME LN DAVIDSON DR DODGE CROSS RD GLEN ST

Transportation 8-23 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Major Local Street HORNETOWN RD LONE STAR AVE MAPLE ST MEETINGHOUSE HILL RD MOONEY ST ORANGE ST PAULSON RD (east) POOR FARM RD (Scenic) RESERVOIR RD (Scenic) RIDGE RD SARAH GREENFIELD WAY SCHOOL ST SHEEPBORO RD (Partially) TAPPAN ST WALDRON RD WINTER ST

Minor Local Street

BALDWINS RD BERRY CT BEAVER POND RD BLAINE ST BLOUIN AVE BRANSON RD CAMERON DR CHERUB DR CHURCH ST COLONIAL CIR COURTLAND ST CRESCENT ST CROWLEY ST DOLAN ST DREAM HILL RD DUMP RD FREEDOM DR FLAGSTONE AVE FLOWING BROOK RD FOXTROT DR GARFIELD ST GOLDEN CIRCLE DR GRANT ST GREAT PINE CIR GREEN ST GRONDIN DR GROVE ST

Transportation 8-24 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Minor Local Street HANCOCK ST HAWTHORNE HILL RD HEMLOCK DR HERSOM DR HOLLY LN HUNTER LN IVY LN JERRY LN LAWRENCE LN LEPENE DR LILAC ST LINCOLN ST LITTLE CITY RD LORING AVE MECHANIC ST MEMORIAL DR ORCHARD CIR PARK DR PAULSON RD (west) PEARL LN (Partially a shared driveway) PERKINS AVE PINE KNOLL DR PLEASANT ST PROSPECT ST RIVER RD (Scenic) SILVER ST SPRUCE DR SUMMER ST SYCAMORE BLVD TALL PINE RD THAYER DR TROTTING PARK RD UNION ST WEBSTER ST WHITE BIRCH LN WILSON ST WORSTER ST

Minimum Local Street

ACORN CT AIKEN RD (Partially) APRIL LN ASPEN DR AVALON RD BALSAM DR BEECHWOOD AVE BLUE HILLS VW

Transportation 8-25 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Minimum Local Street BLUEBERRY DR BRAMBLEBUSH RD BROOKS DR BROWN RD BRUCIC HILL RD BUTLER CT CEMETERY RD CANAL ST CHIPMUNK LN COMMERCE PKY CORNWALL PL COTTAGE CT CURTIS RD DEER COVE CIR ELLIOTT LN EVERGREEN LN EXCALIBUR RD GALAHAD PL GARLAND DR GEORGIA PINE LN GRAY AVE GREGOIRE DR HICKORY CT HILLVIEW TER HUMMINGBIRD DR JACKSON DR JAMES CT JESTERS WAY KING ARTHUR DR KNOTTY KNOLL CIR LANCELOT RD LILLY DR MARSTON CT MELODY LN MERLIN RD MONTGOMERY DR MORNING DOVE LN MOUNT VERNON ST OAKWOOD RD PEACEFUL PINES CIR POLLIWOG LN PRINCIPAL LN RAND ST RUSSELL LN (Partially) SEYMOUR CT SMITH CT STONEWALL DR TOWN RD

Transportation 8-26 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Minimum Local Street TRISTAN DR VACHON RD VIVIANA DR WATER ST

4.2 Design Standards

Currently Farmington’s road design standards, for Class V roads, are generally appropriate for handling the necessary traffic volumes without excessive pavement. The road classification shown in this section should serve as the basis for flexible design standards that are more appropriate to the surroundings and the function of the road. Farmington’s existing standards can be found below in Table 8-8.

Table 8-8 Farmington Road Design Standards

Design Local Road Specification Requirements Right of Way 50 feet

Minimum width of pavement 20 feet

Minimum grade 5%

Maximum grade 10%

Maximum grade 3 % within 50' of at intersections intersection Minimum angle of intersection 60% Width of shoulders 3 feet (') minimum Width of shoulders on rural roads 4 feet (') minimum Minimum center-line radii on curves 200 feet (') Minimum tangent length between reverse curves 100 feet (')

Transportation 8-27 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Generally, roadway standards are established to ensure that new roads are safe in every situation. According to Farmington’s roadway standards, as found within the subdivision regulations, minimum roadway widths start at 20 feet. This does not ensure a road system hierarchy. In an effort to create safe roads, often an unforeseen result of roadway design standards has been the over-design of rural and lower density residential streets. Typically, over-design of these streets includes elements such as unnecessarily wide pavement widths, as well as sidewalks and curbing which are generally suited for more urban and higher density locales. Below are a set of street design standards created during the US Route 2 Corridor Study in Northern New Hampshire that could serve as a model for future changes to Farmington’s standards.

Table 8-9 Street Design Standards

Standard Minimum Minor Major Collector Arterial Local Local Local Street Street Street Street Street Number of 2-6 7-40 41-150 151-500 >500 Dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings ADT 20-60 60-400 400-1500 1500-5000 >5000 vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles Surface 16 feet 18 feet 20 feet 20 feet varies Width Shoulder n.a. 2 feet 2 feet 4 feet varies Width Minimum 36 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet varies Right of Way Design 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph varies Speed Minimum 80 feet 80 feet 115 feet 155 feet varies Length of Vertical Curve Minimum 45 feet 45 feet 90 feet 165 feet varies Horizontal Curve radii Minimum 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Grade Maximum 12% 10% 10% 8% 8% Grade Site 150 feet 200 feet 200 feet 250 feet 400 feet Distance (both directions)

Transportation 8-28 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

FOOTNOTES TO ABOVE (TABLE 8-9): [1] Shall be future anticipated traffic. (Assuming 10 trips per day per dwelling unit). [2] All cross-section horizontal distances shall be measured perpendicular to straight-line sections and radii to curved sections. [3] All season safe sight distance is defined as a line which encounters no visual obstruction between two (2) points, each at a height of three feet nine inches (3'-9") above the pavement and allowing for a snow window and /or seasonal vegetation. The line represents the critical line of sight between the operator of a vehicle using the access (point 1, ten feet (10') back from the road pavement) and the operator of a vehicle approaching from either direction (point 2).

4.2.1 Gravel Roads

Gravel roads are generally the lowest service provided to the traveling public in the hierarchy of roadways, and are usually considered greatly inferior to paved roads. Yet, in many rural regions, the volume of traffic is so low that paving and maintaining a paved road is not economically feasible, and the character that the unpaved roadways contribute to the community is highly valued. In some cases gravel roads exist to provide access only to our farm and forest resources. Many gravel roads now serve rural residents as well, however, many of these roads will remain unpaved due to very low traffic volume and/or lack of funds to adequately improve the subgrade and base before applying pavement layers.

Change is constant in almost every aspect of this modern world and maintaining gravel roads is no exception. There are new ways of stabilizing roads, new methods of dust control, new and different kinds of equipment available for maintenance/ rehabilitation of gravel roads, and even new surface materials such as recycled asphalt being used. Not all of these innovations may be available or practical for Farmington, but the community is encouraged to take an objective look at each of them. Then an informed decision can be made about changing the way gravel roads are designed and maintained within Farmington.

When evaluating the possibility of improvements to a specific roadway the community should consider the roads status in the road system hierarchy or road improvement plan. Each roadway evaluation will be different, but all of the pros and cons must be weighed. These include the existing conditions, current and future levels of use, the character of the traffic, construction and maintenance costs over the life of the road, roadway safety, community character, and public opinion. In all cases Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used, the rural character of the roadway should be preserved, and every effort should be made to calm traffic speeds by preserving the adjacent features and vegetation and limiting the width of the roadway. Scenic road designation, cutting restrictions, and restrictions on the minimum distance between driveways could all be used to help manage the roadway and adjacent land uses.

4.2.2 Scenic Roads

This designation can be applied to paved and gravel roads to provide additional oversight at the local level. The character of the roadway and its roadside attributes can be better protected if this tool is used appropriately. The application of this tool takes a strong commitment by the municipal boards and departments, and the public.

Transportation 8-29 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

4.3 Land Use Implications and Potential Actions

Land Use Implications

Farmington’s network of roadways form the primary transportation system for the community and most transportation modes rely on this system. Here are a few considerations related to the network and the design standards that will be used as the basis for future improvements and new roadways in Farmington.

1) Roadways should be designed and constructed based on the role they fill in the local road system. Roads should provide the necessary access while controlling the speed of vehicles.

2) Reducing roadway widths reduces the amount of impervious surface in the town. This is much better for stormwater management and calms traffic.

Potential Actions

There is one possible action the Town may want to consider pursuing as it evaluates the classification of roadways in Farmington and the design standards for each class. This section will be used to identify the specific action for Farmington to take upon completion of the master plan.

1) Review the existing street design standards and include greater detail to ensure a hierarchy of roads in Farmington.

2) Create an evaluation process for gravel roads that are being considered for paving.

3) Create a transportation improvement plan that documents future maintenance and construction needs for all roadways and associated transportation infrastructure.

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In order for Farmington to create a transportation system where function and safety will be improved, and longevity of the system will be ensured for all modes, the community must recognize the connection between land use decisions and transportation improvements. Many of the items discussed in this chapter can be addressed in the Farmington Land Use Regulations. Others can be pursued simultaneously in a non-regulatory process of outreach and education. Business owners may choose to apply access management and traffic calming elements into proposed changes to their properties, and may wish to work with their employees on reducing and reshaping demand on the transportation system. Organizations within the community can then be encouraged to partner on transportation services that meet the needs of their clients as well as the broader community.

Transportation 8-30 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2004

Chapter 9

Implementation

Chapter 9 Implementation

According to RSA 674:2, III, the Master Plan may include the following sections:

“..(m) An implementation section, which is a long range action program of specific actions, time frames, allocation of responsibility for actions, description of land development regulations to be adopted, and procedures which the municipality may use to monitor and measure the effectiveness of each section of the plan.”

In terms of the recommended implementation section, the Town of Farmington feels that it is important to create detailed actions that will put the new master plan into action. This Chapter will enable the Farmington Planning Board and Board of Selectmen to oversee the completion of the 31 implementation actions of this Master Plan. Each of these actions was assigned a timeline and a responsible party to assist with future evaluation of the progress on these tasks. A chapter reference has also been included to tie these actions back to their corresponding chapters. This section of the master plan is dynamic and should be reviewed and modified after one year to measure the progress.

______Implementation Chapter 9- 1 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005

______Implementation Chapter 9- 2 Farmington Master Plan ~ 2005