These deals have been in the works for more than two years. The city has binding purchase agreements with the owners based on appraisals taken when land values were higher. New appraisals, required to get funds from a federal program, came in with much lower values. That means fewer-than-expected federal funds will be available, and the city would be required to come up with the difference.

Saying that Ann Arbor Township was their partner, Moran urged commissioners to support the purchase of development rights. He called the Braun farm a “poster child” for the township’s land preservation movement, and said it would be a significant error to reject the deal simply because of the new appraisals.

Later in the meeting, commissioners also got an update on committee work being done to help support small farms in the greenbelt.

Impact: Land Values, Delayed Application Approval

Problems with the Braun and Gould deals came up at the commission’s February 2010 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report:

New appraisals for two properties – the 286-acre Braun farm and 51 acres of Gould land, both in Ann Arbor Township – had been requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP. The city is requesting FRPP funds to help pay for the purchase of development rights to those properties, but previous appraisals were more than a year old by the time the federal program accepted all of the application paperwork, according to Kohring. [The city council has already approved the purchases, but the deals haven't yet closed, pending FRPP funding.]

At its January meeting, the greenbelt commission had recommended that the city council authorize the new appraisals. On Wednesday, Kohring reported that the Braun farm, which originally appraised for just over $4 million, was now appraised at $2,107,500. For the Gould property, the appraisal was lowered from $691,000 to $385,000.

In response, the available FRPP funds dropped from $1.43 million for the Braun farm to just over $1 million, Kohring said. For the Gould land, FRPP funds fell from $256,000 to $192,500. To cover the difference, an additional $377,000 is needed for the Braun property, and an additional $63,500 for the Gould property – those costs could be split with Ann Arbor Township, if township officials agree, Kohring said. The city had previously committed to paying $1,363,500 for Braun and $269,000 for Gould.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund said that the next steps would be to ask city council to approve the additional funds. It takes the FRPP between three months to a year to process the federal portion, she said, adding that she’s been told the FRPP would expedite this application because the deals need to close by Sept. 30, 2010.

Peter Allen asked what the implications would be if the commission postponed action until its next meeting. Trocchio said they’ve been working with the landowners since 2007, and both owners are “pretty antsy.”

Jennifer Hall confirmed with Trocchio and Kohring that the city had binding purchase agreements with the landowners. Allen said the commission was hearing for the first time that the financing contingency in the agreements wasn’t valid. “What we’re hearing tonight is the reverse of what we were told by the attorney at the last meeting,” he said, referring to Mary Fales from the city attorney’s office. He suggested scheduling another meeting – perhaps an emergency meeting – to bring back someone from the city attorney’s office to clarify the situation.

Fales attended the March 10 meeting, along with Sumedh Bahl, the city’s interim community services director. They joined the commissioners in a closed session that lasted over an hour.

Public Commentary

Just before going into closed session, commissioners heard from Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran, who spoke during the time set aside for public commentary. The Braun farm is a significant parcel, he said, noting that years ago it was the site of a proposed mobile home development – a project, called Colt Farms, that helped spur residents to mobilize and pass a land preservation millage, both in the township and for the city’s greenbelt.

Initially, Moran said resistance to the greenbelt program came from homebuilders, not surprisingly, but also from farmers. It’s taken a long time to build up significant credibility, he said. Now, however, farmers will take township officials at their word when approached about being part of the greenbelt. “Our word is our bond,” he said, and it’s very important to live up to their commitments.

Moran also expressed concern over the views of some commissioners whom he’d heard are reluctant to close on these deals at a time when the city is facing significant budget cuts. But the city can’t use greenbelt monies for other purposes, he noted, and if purchases aren’t made when land values are low, they won’t be making the best use of taxpayer dollars.

“I hope you’ll be strong in this regard,” Moran said.

He ended by saying that the township is a partner with the city in this matter and is ready “to do what needs to be done” to close the deal. “We will share with you those difficulties that have been occasioned by the delay of time,” he said.

Resolution of Support

About an hour and 20 minutes later, the commission returned from its closed session on attorney-client privileged communication about the land acquisition deal. Laura Rubin, the commission’s chair, said they’d discussed the two properties and had spent considerable time reviewing decisions that were made two years and four months ago. Back then, the properties had first been considered for the greenbelt and had received high scores on measurements used to evaluate potential acquisitions. Rubin said the commission was ready to consider a resolution related to the topic of the closed-session discussion.

Carsten Hohnke, who also represents Ward 5 on city council, said the commission had concluded that the new information they’d received didn’t impact their support for the deal. He moved a resolution stating that the commission “wishes to express its continued support of the acquisition of the Braun and Gould property development rights, in compliance with FRPP requirements and in partnership with Ann Arbor Township and the property owners.”

There was no further discussion.

Outcome: The resolution of support passed with no dissent. The matter will next be considered by city council at an upcoming meeting.

Supporting Small Farms: Working Out the Details

Dan Ezekiel gave an update on the commission’s small farms subcommittee. A recent meeting had included Ezekiel and fellow commissioner Tom Bloomer; Molly Notarianni, manager of the Ann Arbor Farmers Market; local farmers Tomm Becker and Shannon Brines; and Mike Moran and Ray Grew of Ann Arbor Township.

Ezekiel said they kicked around possible language for a conservation easement specifically for small farms. They used the boilerplate easement language required for the FRPP applications (U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program), but considered how it could be adapted without some of the federal requirements. Ann Arbor Township is doing a lot of parallel work, Ezekiel said, and it was good to get their perspectives.

One issue they discussed was impervious surfaces. What would be a reasonable amount of temporary, impervious surface to accommodate hoop houses? The requirement should meet the needs of farmers, Ezekiel said, but also take into account the fact that neighbors probably don’t want to have a collection of hoop houses packed close together and covering the entire property.

They also discussed water needs and drainage issues, and whether the greenbelt program should play the role of “farm police” – that is, how closely should these properties be monitored? Should these small farms be required to submit annual reports? Ezekiel said everyone agreed that requiring a business plan was important. One of the fears is tied to the potential failure of the farm – what would happen to the property in that case? Would it just become someone’s nice yard that’s protected by taxpayer dollars?

Affordable housing was another issue they discussed, Ezekiel reported, including the idea of having housing on the land for an intern or apprentice farmer. What are some creative approaches to fund housing for small farms, and how might that be written into the easement agreement? [This issue was discussed at some length during the greenbelt commission's December 2009 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Explores Support for Small Farms: Federal housing grants could offer funding options"]

Ezekiel described the conversation as fruitful, saying it was good to have a lot of stakeholders involved. No decisions were made and it will be a continued discussion, he said, but they had made a lot of progress.

Present: Laura Rubin (chair), Jennifer Santi Hall (vice-chair), Mike Garfield, Peter Allen, Dan Ezekiel, Carsten Hohnke, Tom Bloomer, Catherine Reising

Absent: Gil Omenn

Next meeting: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners boardroom, 220 N. Main, Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Many participants in the March 2 Homegrown Food Summit wore buttons like these, supporting locally grown food. (Photos by the writer.)

It’s Girl Scout cookie season, and on Saturday – after swinging through the Ann Arbor Farmers Market – I encountered a Brownie and her dad set up at the corner of Main and Liberty, their table loaded with boxes of Thin Mints, Samoas, Tagalongs and an assortment of other cookies that I remember selling too, back in the day. I bought three boxes.

At $3.50 per box, the cookies aren’t outrageously priced – though the boxes seem to get smaller every year. But later, in doing a quick calculation of all the food I’d bought that day, I realized that in buying those cookies, I’d failed to meet a challenge I’d heard earlier in the week: Spend 10% of your food budget on locally produced food.

The “10% Washtenaw” challenge was issued at the Homegrown Local Food Summit, a day-long event on March 2 that drew over 200 people to the Dana Building on the University of Michigan campus. Many of the people at the summit already surpass that goal in a fairly dramatic way. The real challenge, organizers acknowledge, is how to convince the rest of us to do the same.

There’s reason to think they can – 2009 was a pretty good year for the local food movement. The March 2 summit was about twice as large as the first one, held just over a year ago at Matthaei Botanical Gardens. The Homegrown Festival in September drew far larger crowds than the first one held in 2008 – the more recent one was packed, with several thousand people attending.

Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program is starting to focus on supporting small farms, more restaurants are highlighting locally produced food, and community-building ventures like Friday Mornings @ SELMA, which raises money for hoop houses and other farming needs, are thriving.

The economic argument that local food activists make is powerful. They calculate that residents of Washtenaw County spend $1 billion annually on food, but less than 1% of that is spent on food grown locally. If, over the next decade, that amount increases to 10%, the dollars spent in this region could have a dramatic multiplier effect. Hundreds of small farms would be needed to meet demand, they argue, creating thousands of new jobs.

The 10% Washtenaw campaign is primarily aimed at individuals, but it’s clear that institutional change is needed as well to reach that goal

In that regard, organizers of the March 2 food summit were heartened by some of the connections being made during the day, and at a kickoff reception held the previous night at the Kerrytown restaurant eve. The events were attended by a few elected officials, some University of Michigan folks, farmers, restaurateurs, food entrepreneurs, nonprofits, members of faith-based initiatives and others who are keen to make some significant changes in how we get our food to the table locally.

Educational institutions hold perhaps the most promise, in terms of efficiently finding large customers for locally produced food. At UM, chef Nelson “Buzz” Cummings has been instrumental in pushing the university’s food system to incorporate more locally grown food into their supply chain – this video from July 2008 sheds some insight into that effort.

Kim Bayer, a leader in the nonprofit Slow Food Huron Valley and one of the summit’s organizers, said that making connections was one of the main goals of the March 2 event. It’s about finding common ground, she said, and understanding that it’s possible “to do more together than we can do alone.”

Policy Initiatives: Local and State

“Doing more together” involves state and local government as well. In Ann Arbor, local food sufficiency is one of 10 environmental indicators tracked by the city. The primary objective of that indicator is to “conserve, protect, and restore local agriculture and aquaculture resources.”

Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, attended last week’s local food summit, and said he was impressed by the efforts already underway by a wide range of groups and individuals.

Matt Naud, the city of Ann Arbor's environmental coordinator, during a break at the March 2 Homegrown Local Food Summit.

While noting that local food sufficiency is one of Ann Arbor’s environmental indicators, Naud also told me that it hasn’t been one that’s received a lot of attention. [Under the category of "What is the city doing?" on the food sufficiency website, two items are listed: the Ann Arbor Farmers Market and the Project Grow gardens, which the city previously helped fund.]

To track its efforts in achieving the local food sufficiency goal, the city looks at two measurements – the amount of greenbelt land preserved, and the diversity of farmers market vendors. By comparison, the “clean air” indicator tracks seven different measures, “clean water” has eight, and “efficient mobility” has 11.

Greenbelt land isn’t always connected to the production of food for the local market. But in the past year, the link between greenbelt land and local food sufficiency has been strengthened. The Greenbelt Advisory Commission, which oversees the city’s 30-year millage that funds the greenbelt, is putting more emphasis on small farms when it considers the purchase of development rights. The commission discussed these efforts at length at their November 2009 meeting.

At the state level, food activists are hopeful about legislation introduced earlier this year by state Rep. Pam Byrnes, who represents the 52nd District, covering the mostly rural western side of Washtenaw County. The bill [HB 5837], which was introduced in February, would make it easier for owners of certain “cottage food” businesses to operate from their homes, rather than requiring them to use commercially licensed kitchens, as is currently the case.

The challenge of finding affordable, available and acceptable-to-the-task kitchen space is critical to local food entrepreneurs – The Chronicle has reported on two ventures that had difficulty with this: Maite Zubia, who makes homemade cookies called Maitelates Alfajores, and Mary Wessel Walker, who recently renamed her Community Farm Kitchen business as Harvest Kitchen. If passed into law, the legislation could eliminate a barrier for start-up food businesses – or for the success of those that intentionally remain small.

Other state-level efforts are underway. At the March 2 summit, Jennifer Fike, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Food System Economic Partnership, gave a report on the Michigan Good Food Summit, held last month in Lansing. That gathering focused on statewide initiatives for the food industry, from advocating for regulatory reform to encouraging the institutional purchasing of locally grown food.

Getting the Word Out

I covered last year’s food summit for The Ann Arbor Chronicle, and the most notable difference between this year and last – aside from the larger turnout – was the very specific call to action made to participants during the March 2 event.

Participants of the March 2 Homegrown Local Food Summit write letters to themselves about steps they'll take to support the local food network and the 10% Washtenaw campaign.

The 10% Washtenaw initiative was the cornerstone of the day. In the morning, participants broke into small groups to design marketing campaigns for it – the results are featured in video clips on the summit’s website.

At the end of the day, organizers gave each participant a piece of paper and envelope – they were asked to write letters to themselves, setting goals and making commitments to support the local food network. Those letters – put into self-addressed, sealed envelopes – were collected and will be mailed back to the writers in five months, as a reminder of their goals.

Five months from now, I’m guessing most people in the room will have chipped away at those goals, even the really ambitious ones.

And the rest of us? That will be a tougher sell. I had lunch recently with a friend who lives in the outskirts of Ann Arbor, and who noted that within her circle of friends – at church, at work, in the neighborhood, and socially – conversations about buying more local food just don’t happen. It’s not even on the radar.

I’ll admit to being a little intimidated by the 10% effort – modest though it is. But it’s conceivable that I could do it: Organizers were smart in making it both concrete and attainable, even for those of us who would need to change our habits to reach it.

I have tremendous admiration for people like Linda Diane Feldt, who attended the summit with a plastic jug full of maple sap that she’d tapped recently from trees in the neighborhood – she was passing out samples, and the clear, slightly sweet liquid tasted like pure spring. And for Lisa Gottlieb and Jeff McCabe, who helped organize the summit and who’ve turned Friday Mornings @ SELMA into a powerful community gathering, showing how a celebration of local food can be a rip-roaring good time, too.

And for the folks at Slow Food Huron Valley, who’ve been pushing these local food efforts for years. Their more ambitious goals include forming a farm incubator program and a community credit union specifically to finance local food-related ventures.

Meanwhile, I’ll try to be more thoughtful about my own food consumption, day by day. Thin Mints are available just once a year, and I like them. I’m going to keep buying them, even though they’re “manufactured,” according to the box, in Louisville, Kentucky.

But just a few blocks away from the Main Street Thin Mint stand, over at the Farmers Market, is where Maite Zubia sells her amazing cookies. And I’ve watched her make them right here in Ann Arbor. So for the rest of the year, it’ll be Maitelates Alfajores for me.

Deirdra Stockmann, left, and Gillian Ream take notes while participants of the Homegrown Local Food Summit describe different events and programs focused on locally produced food in this area.

The March 2 Homegrown Local Food Summit aimed to be a zero-waste event – participants were asked to bring their own dishware for the lunch, which was catered by A Knife's Work, using locally produced food. The two settings deemed "most creative" won a prize – soap from the Ann Arbor Farmers Market.

A detail from a much larger chart showing of local food connections throughout Washtenaw County.

A sign at the entrance to Ann Arbor's West Park, which will be closed in March through the summer for extensive renovations. (Photo by the writer.)

But commissioners heard updates on a range of issues, from capital projects – including the months-long closing of West Park, starting in March – to a report on the greenbelt program.

And though snow has blanketed the area, work is underway to prep for controlled burns throughout the city’s parks and natural areas. Commissioners got a report on that effort, which includes a public meeting on March 2 and volunteer training the following day. The topic also provided some fodder for puns – in introducing the presentation, PAC chair Scott Rosencrans joked that they’d be “burning with interest” to hear the report.

Natural Area Preservation: “Why Do We Use Fire?”

Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s Natural Area Preservation program, known as NAP, began his update on controlled burns by giving some history on the use of fire for clearing land, which he said dates back hundreds of years to when native Americans in this area used the approach.

Giving this “ancient pulse of energy” to the land has many benefits, Borneman said. It discourages the growth of most woody vegetation, takes care of the encroachment of non-native shrubs, and stimulates the growth of native wildflowers, among other things. He gave several examples, including the fact that the Upland Boneset – a wildflower not recorded here since 1937 – emerged after one of the city’s controlled burns.

The process starts with an inventory of the area to be burned, which is included as part of a more comprehensive burn plan. NAP staff get permits from the fire department, and permission from landowners, if access is needed through private land. They notify the public through letters to nearby homes and notices in the parks, and hold informational meetings two times a year.

The next public meeting is on Tuesday, March 2 at the Leslie Science & Nature Center, 1831 Traver Road, starting at 7:30 p.m. That will be followed on March 3 by a half-day volunteer training session, also at the center from noon-5 p.m. Borneman said that many people in the burn crew are volunteers.

To prepare for a burn, the crew surrounds the entire site with swaths of cleared land called burn breaks. They also use a leaf blower to remove leaves from logs, so they’ll be less likely to catch fire. Then they wait for the weather – burns are entirely dependent on weather conditions, Borneman said. The best days tend to be in late March and early April, then again in early November.

On the day of a burn, staff tries to get the word out – through announcements on the radio, signs in the park, and other means. They alert the city’s dispatch operations, in case residents call in, thinking it’s a real fire – “then away we go!” Borneman said.

There’s always a city PR person on site during a burn, to explain what’s happening. Borneman said schoolchildren sometimes attend – the April 1 burn in Buhr Park is especially popular, he said, as part of the Buhr Park Children’s Wet Meadow Project.

Some burns are more difficult than others. The small prairie along Huron River Parkway is tricky, Borneman said, because of its proximity to a heavily-used road. In general, smoke is more of a concern than fire, because smoke is harder to control. That’s one reason why most burn sites are fairly small, Borneman said – in the 5-10 acre range. They also burn during the dormant season, when plants are dry and therefore will generate less smoke. Burns are also done, whenever possible, on days when the atmospheric conditions maximize air lift, allowing the smoke to rise up and out of the area.

Responding to a question from commissioner John Lawter, Borneman said animals aren’t at risk from the slow burns that are done, since they burrow underground – even a quarter inch beneath the surface, the soil temperature can remain unchanged during the burn. Often the crew will see mice and toads scurrying around following a burn, he added – the threat to them is more from hawks than from the fire.

Commissioner Karen Levin asked how often areas are burned. It depends, Borneman said. Of the 150 city parks and nature areas, it’s not possible to do them all. Some sites are burned annually, some never, he said. In general, there are burns in 70-80 sites. Commissioner Gwen Nystuen asked about the burns done in the Ruthven Nature Area, near Gallup Park. NAP has done a lot of burning there with great results, Borneman said.

Lawter noted that others are doing controlled burns, not just the city – including private companies and the University of Michigan. That’s because there’s more interest in native landscaping, Borneman said. He gave credit to Bob Grese, director of UM’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum, for starting up burns in this area – Grese’s own front yard is burned each year. In addition to burns on UM and Washtenaw County property, the Ann Arbor Public Schools does one each year at the prairie next to Pioneer High School, Borneman said.

He concluded by urging residents to sign up for alerts about NAP activities by emailing nap@a2gov.org.

Greenbelt Update

At the September 2009 meeting of the city’s Greenbelt Advisory Commission, Scott Rosencrans attended and introduced himself as the new chair of PAC, and said he looked forward to the two groups working together. On Tuesday, Laura Rubin reciprocated.

Rubin, who chairs GAC and serves as executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, gave park commissioners an update on the greenbelt program. She noted that an April 6 joint meeting of GAC and PAC has been scheduled, to talk about common issues for the two groups.

A 30-year millage at 0.5 mill was passed in 2003 to generate funds for the greenbelt. The greenbelt commission’s first strategic plan, approved in 2005, outlined priorities for the program. Those included a goal of forming 1,000-acre blocks of protected land, an emphasis on partnership and on leveraging funding from other sources. Rubin noted that three townships, for example – Scio, Webster and Ann Arbor – all have millages for land preservation, and have partnered with the greenbelt program on the purchase of development rights (PDR) in those areas.

Washtenaw County – specifically its natural areas preservation program – has been another partner. The greenbelt is also part of Preserve Washtenaw, a consortium of local groups working on land preservation.

The strategic plan gives priority to farmland and land along the Huron River, Rubin said. The deals are usually PDRs – buying the rights to development, which prevents the land from being used for purposes other than farmland or open space. The millage can only be used for acquisition, not management. In the cases where land needs to be managed, another partner – like Washtenaw County – takes the lead. The greenbelt program has partnered with the county on three purchases, Rubin said.

Since its inception, the greenbelt program has closed 15 transactions, spending $12.37 million and covering 1,782 acres. Those deals included an additional $11.85 million that came from other sources, such as the townships and federal funds.

As a result, Rubin said, “we are starting to see a greenbelt forming around Ann Arbor.” That includes nearly 900 acres in Webster Township alone.

Rubin outlined some recent changes in the program. For one, the market has changed dramatically over the past five years. Appraised values were far higher then, and there was competition from developers for many of the properties. Now, appraisals are dropping rapidly and the city’s greenbelt program is one of the only buyers in the market, Rubin said. In fact, they’re getting applications from developers who are trying to unload property previously set for development. [The implications of a drop in appraisals – which are affecting two deals that haven't yet closed – were discussed at the greenbelt commission's Feb. 10, 2010 meeting.]

The greenbelt commission is also putting more of an emphasis on the local food network, Rubin said. Farms must be 40 acres or more to qualify for federal funding for a purchase of development rights. In the greenbelt program’s previous scoring system – used to prioritize purchases – that size was give higher priority, because of the federal funds. The greenbelt commission has revised its scoring to give higher priority to small farms and community-supported agriculture, known as CSAs. Local residents buy shares in CSAs and receive produce from the farm. [See Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Explores Support for Small Farms"]

Rubin concluded by saying it’s an opportune time for land preservation, with less competition, lower land values and more funding coming in through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Rosencrans asked how natural areas and open space fit into the greenbelt program. Rubin replied that the program has designated about 10% of the greenbelt funds for high-quality natural areas, but one hurdle is land management – they don’t have funds to maintain properties. Having a partner like Washtenaw County helps, she said – the county can manage properties through their natural areas preservation program.

Rosencrans also wondered whether agribusiness was a competitor in terms of acquiring farmland. Not really, Rubin replied – in the past, it’s mostly been developers who were buying property in the county. The other difficulty initially in signing PDR deals with farmers was a skepticism about the program itself, she added. They had concerns about the city coming out and managing their land. The first few deals were important in building the program’s reputation.

Sam Offen asked whether there was a requirement to continue farming the land, as part of the PDR deal. Rubin said there are restrictions on development – no more than 2% of the land can be an impervious surface – but the land could lie fallow.

Offen also wondered how much more land the greenbelt program could buy, given current market conditions. That was difficult to answer, Rubin said. There’s about $13 million left in the fund balance, but land prices vary – property that’s closer to Ann Arbor is more expensive. It also depends on how many matching funds are available.

Rosencrans noted that both the park advisory commission and the greenbelt advisory commission used the same consultants – The Conservation Fund – and that he looked forward to stronger communication and partnership. Rubin agreed, noting that there was a bit of gray area regarding land acquisition, and that she was looking forward to talking about these issues at their April 6 joint meeting.

Millage-Funded Land Acquisition: An Update

Highlighting the common ground shared by both commissions, Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund also gave a presentation at Tuesday’s meeting. She updated commissioners on the city’s land acquisition efforts related to the open space and parkland preservation millage, which funds the greenbelt as well as land acquisition for parks. [She gave a similar report at the greenbelt advisory commission's Dec. 9, 2009 meeting.]

A goal for parks acquisition in 2008-09 was to complete one or two acquisitions, including at least one donation. The city completed the purchase of a conservation easement on 10 acres in Scio Township, in partnership with the township. Four other deals are expected to close this fiscal year, including the purchase of a parcel on Chapin Street near West Park, which the city council approved in December 2009.

Another goal for 2008-09 dealt was to rezone and annex 30 parks that had been acquired by the city. The rezoning of that annexed land to public land – was completed. The annexation of land that was previously in township “islands” within the city is in progress.

Trocchio reviewed financial statements for the millage, clarifying that one-third of the revenue is for parks, and two-thirds for the greenbelt. In fiscal 2009, land acquisitions for parks totaled $237,444. The fund balance for the parks share of the millage was $4.7 million as of June 30, 2009 – the end fiscal 2009.

Reviewing administrative costs, Trocchio noted that a cap of 6% had been put on those costs over the life of the bond, through 2023. At the end of October 2009, $3.1 million remained of that amount. [At its Dec. 21 meeting, city council approved a one-year contract with The Conservation Fund for $119,565, with possible renewals at $113,661 for a second year and $106,797 for the third year.]

Trocchio also showed calculations comparing administrative expenses to total expenditures. They’re hovering around 3-4%, she said. Total expenditures from the millage in FY09 were $4.26 million, for example, with administrative expenses of $184,924 – or 4.3%.

Several commissioners had questions for Trocchio. John Lawter asked about the jump in expenses for information technology – from $2,500 in fiscal 2007 to $12, 612 in FY08 and $21,540 in FY09. Trocchio said it reflected a change in the way the city charged for IT services to the different city units. Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, added that it now reflects true IT costs, including the different software programs that are being used by Trocchio and Peg Kohring, a Conservation Fund manager who works with the city.

Sam Offen asked what was included in administrative expenses – did that include things like land appraisals? Appraisals are calculated into the cost of the acquisition, Trocchio explained. Whenever possible, expenses are allocated to specific properties, to make sure the true cost of the acquisition is known. She clarified that The Conservation Fund staff is paid on an hourly basis.

Capital Improvements

Parks planner Amy Kuras gave an update on capital projects that were completed in the city’s parks over the past year, and previewed those being considered for 2010. Some highlights:

• The ice rink floor was replaced at Buhr Park Ice Arena. It was a complex, labor-intensive project, Kuras said, involving two layers of piping – a lower layer for heating to prevent permafrost, then a layer of insulation, then piping for refrigeration and an 18” slab of concrete. The arena is open for skating again. The spring, they’ll add a barrier-free entry – a sloping sidewalk – to the pool and ice rink complex.
• A barrier-free sloping sidewalk was added to the Kempf House Museum, at 312 S. Division. A porch was replaced with a stoop and steps that are more historically accurate, Kuras said.
• Most of the steel beams and decking were replaced at Bandemer Park bridge. The vehicle bridge at Gallup Park was also repaired – railings on that bridge will be replaced later this year.
• Pathways were renovated in South Maple, Huron Highlands and Sugarbush parks. Renovations at Leslie Park Golf Course included path upgrades, benches, installation of “very fancy pit toilets,” an expanded tunnel and replacement of a bridge.
• One shade structure was added near the vending machines at Fuller Park Pool, and another one was extended.
• At the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, lights were replaced, bird screens installed and the structures were painted. The city is planning to upgrade the electrical system, Kuras said, extending electrical service to portions of the market where it is currently unavailable to vendors.
• Pétanque courts in Burns Park were donated by Howard Ando and Jane Wilkinson, who are planning to program events for the coming season, Kuras said.
• A new de-humidification system was added to the Veterans Memorial Park ice arena – it had been “pretty cloudy in there,” Kuras said. The city also renovated locker rooms there and installed a new fire suppression system.
• The kitchen at Cobblestone Farm was renovated, as it wasn’t meeting needs of caterers for large events held there, Kuras said. A trash shoot and dumb waiter are being installed.
• The Mary Beth Doyle Park disc golf course is complete, and a sign with a map of the course will be added. The park is off of Packard, east of Cobblestone Farm.
• A shelter was added at Olson dog park, off of Dhu Varren on the city’s north side, and the parking lot was repaved.

Kuras also mentioned the major West Park renovations that are underway – the park will close in March and remain closed through the summer. One of the main goals is to improve stormwater management on the site. [Kuras had given a detailed presentation about the changes at PAC's August 2009 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "West Park Renovations Get Fast-Tracked"]

As part of that project, Kuras said she’s working with the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission to design new seat walls that will be set into the hill opposite the park’s band shell. [See Chronicle coverage: "Artists Sought for West Park Project"]

Several questions from commissioners related to the West Park project. Tim Berla asked whether there were still plans to include gardens from the nonprofit Project Grow. Kuras said there was space in the master plan for those gardens.

Mike Anglin, who represents Ward 5 on city council, said he’d heard some grumblings about the final designs not including a dog park. Kuras said that all of the mowed areas of the park are heavily used. At a previous PAC meeting, John Lawter had floated the possibility of putting a dog park in the recently acquired Chapin Street property, adjacent to the park. Kuras said that lot was too small for a dog park.

Anglin also asked whether Kuras had any control over the crossing at Chapin and Huron. No, Kuras said, but Eli Cooper – the city’s transportation program manager – is in contact with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation about it. Although vehicles are supposed to stop for pedestrians using the crosswalk, that rarely occurs – making the crossing hazardous. West Park lies to the north of Huron, and the Ann Arbor YMCA is located at the southeast corner of Huron and Chapin.

Scott Rosencrans asked about the decision to use wooden decking on the bridges at Bandemer and Gallup – that gives it a lot of character, he said, but what about durability? Kuras said she’d been concerned about that too, and that they’d looked at other materials, including concrete and metal grating. The challenge with concrete is that the entire stretch would need to be torn out if you needed to access the bridge beneath it for repairs, whereas with wood planks, limited portions could be removed.

Grating was a problem because during the winter, salt from vehicles would get through to the structural part of the bridge, corroding the cor-ten steel. Cor-ten had been a popular material for bridge construction because its self-rusting quality was believed to provide a protective coating. That works in Florida, Kuras noted wryly, but not so well in northern states. This will be a problem statewide, she added, because many of Michigan’s bridges were built with this material.

Tim Berla asked about the possibility of putting recycling bins next to trash bins at the Mary Beth Doyle disc golf course. He hated to see recyclables being put into the trash, just because there wasn’t another option. Smith noted that it was unlikely to happen at the point, since staff would have to empty those bins. Because of the budget, they were looking for ways to cut back on work, not add new tasks. He encouraged disc golfers to carry their recyclables out of the park when they’re finished.

Future Capital Project – Setting Priorities

Later in the meeting, Kuras spoke again about capital projects for parks and recreation, this time giving an update on how staff will be setting priorities for choosing projects in the coming year. Last year, staff developed a rating system based on six broad categories: environmental; safety; regulatory compliance; financial impact; user experience; and social, cultural, recreational and aesthetic considerations. The categories are weighted, she said – for example, safety is given a heavier weight than aesthetic considerations.

They’ve identified 19 projects to prioritize for the next fiscal year, based on those six categories. The projects range from additional renovations at West Park and the farmers market, to replacing deteriorated roads and parking lots throughout the parks system.

Commissioner Gwen Nystuen asked why the Allen Creek Greenway wasn’t on the list – it had been identified by PAC as a goal on the parks system master plan, she said. Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, said they only had about $1 million to spend on capital projects. There were certain things – like the greenway – that they didn’t include, simply because the funding wouldn’t be available, he said.

Nystuen said she’s a little uneasy leaving those larger projects – including the greenway, skatepark and dog park – off the list. Mike Anglin noted that the greenway was in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which city council recently approved, so perhaps just referencing that list would be sufficient.

The staff struggles with how much to include, Kuras said, noting that the PROS plan – the state-mandated Parks, Recreation and Open Space plan, which is being updated this year – covers an even broader range of projects.

Naming, Sponsorship and Gift Policies

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, told commissioners that preparation of a policy for naming, sponsorships and gifts within the parks system had been expedited because of Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center. Efforts are underway to find additional revenues for those facilities, which have been targeted to close in fiscal 2010 because of budget cuts. Raising money through sponsorships, gifts and naming opportunities is one option that’s been discussed.

Kuras outlined some of the highlights of the policies. The gifts policy applies for gifts under $25,000, giving guidance to donors and staff about what gifts are appropriate – clarifying whether they fit the mission and vision of the parks system, for example. The policy states that installation and maintenance cost must be included in the gift, and the gift’s “permanency” – the amount of time that the city is obligated to care for the gift – will be limited to 10 years. [.pdf file of gift policy]

The policy gives people a clear idea of what’s required, Kuras said. Smith said that staff will prepare a gift guide as well, which lays out this policy. The guide will also give suggestions about what gifts the parks system needs. It’s unlikely that benches at Gallup Park will be on that list – Kuras noted that there are over 100 benches there. Maintenance workers used to joke that if more benches were added, you could eliminate the paths – it would be possible to traverse the park by walking on the benches.

For naming and sponsorship, the underlying philosophy is similar, Kuras said. Among other things, the policy clarifies that sponsorships are limited to two-year periods, and that for naming a facility, the donor would have to cover 60% of the project’s capital costs. [.pdf file of sponsorship and naming policy]

Several commissioners were concerned about adequately recognizing donations. Gwen Nystuen asked whether there was a way to permanently recognize a gift – perhaps on a plaque – even if the gift itself isn’t permanent. Kuras pointed to the mural at Leslie Science and Nature Center, where donors are named. The city could do something similar. Smith added that they could possibly have a recognition wall for that purpose – the policy gives them flexibility to determine that at a later date.

Sam Offen was also concerned about recognizing donors for their gift beyond the 10-year period. He noted that the University of Michigan had torn down a building that had been named for a donor, without notifying the family before the decision. There needs to be a continued recognition, on a permanent plaque or in some other way, he said.

Tim Berla noted that some “gifts” aren’t actually gifts at all – sometimes they aren’t items that are needed, and they end up costing the city money. Though gifts and recognition are obviously linked, he said, it would be good to try to separate the two.

Offen asked if gifts needed city council approval. Unless they’re in some way controversial, Smith said, gifts under $25,000 don’t require council approval. Anything over $25,000 would go to council, however.

Smith also clarified that in the naming and sponsorship policy, no dollar amount is mentioned. That’s intentional, he said, giving the staff flexibility to handle a wide range of sponsorships, including those that might be relatively small.

David Barrett asked how many gifts the city gets that are over $25,000.

“Not enough,” Smith quipped.

Outcome: The commission passed both policies unanimously.

Updates from Commissioners: Golf Advisory Task Force

Commissioner Julie Grand gave a report on the city’s golf advisory task force, on which she serves. The group met the previous week, she said, and had a heated discussion about the possible privatization of Huron Hills Golf Course. At this point, it’s just an idea, she said – no RFPs (requests for proposals) have been issued. [The RFP was discussed at city council meetings 0n Jan. 25 and Feb.8, 2010, and city administrator Roger Fraser indicated at the Febrary meeting that city staff will work on development of such an RFP.]

The task force has been directed to look for ways to get additional funding for Huron Hills, Grand said, and they hope to get clarification on a number of questions, such as how the city’s municipal service charges – fees paid by every department for shared services, such as information technology and legal services – factor into the budget.

Colin Smith added that the city has been approached by a private vendor interested in alternative uses for Huron Hills – splitting the course into a driving range and learning center on one side of Huron River Parkway, and a 9-hole course on the other. City staff will develop an RFP over the summer, he said, which will be put out for bids. There will then be a review process of the proposals submitted, including a look at proposed financial returns. “It is not a foregone conclusion, that’s for sure,” he said.

The RFP will likely be broad, Smith said, to allow for more creative proposals. Before being put out to bid, it would be reviewed by the task force as well as PAC. He likened it to the Library Lot process, in which the city issued an RFP for development on top of an underground parking structure. There would likely be a committee formed to review responses to the Huron Hills RFP, Smith said, and a lot of opportunity for people to know what’s going on.

Present: John Lawter, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen, David Barrett, Scott Rosencrans, Julie Grand, Doug Chapman, Karen Levin, Tim Berla, Mike Anglin (ex-officio)

Absent: Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Next meeting: Tuesday, March 16 at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

The city-owned Fuller Road parking lot, site of the proposed Fuller Road Station. To the south of the lot is the University of Michigan medical complex. (Photos by the writer.)

Speaking at a forum on transit-oriented development, Leinberger – a University of Michigan professor of practice in urban planning – said current plans for the joint UM/city of Ann Arbor project do a good job of incorporating different kinds of transit, from bikes and buses to perhaps, eventually, commuter rail.

But Leinberger criticized the project for taking some of Ann Arbor’s most valuable land and turning it into something that won’t generate revenue for the city. He told Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, that “whoever’s in your position 20 years from now will tear it down.”

Monday’s forum, held at the UM Art & Architecture building on north campus, was organized by members of the WALLY Coalition and the 208 Group, among others, to focus on local transit-oriented development efforts. Moderated by local developer Peter Allen, the event included presentations by Cooper, Richard Murphy of the city of Ypsilanti and Shea Charles, Howell’s city manager.

Walkable Urban vs. Drivable Sub-Urban

Chris Leinberger began his presentation by noting that Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of UM’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning, had written a book with Peter Calthorpe – “The Pedestrian Pocket Book” – in which they coined the term transit-oriented development. “So in a sense,” Leinberger said, “it started here.” [The name Calthorpe is familiar to Ann Arbor residents for another reason – the city hired Calthorpe's firm to help develop a zoning and land use strategy. The result of that work was the Calthorpe Report.]

Transportation drives development, Leinberger said. To illustrate, he outlined a post-World War II shift in America from walkable urban environments to drivable “sub-urban” settings in what he characterized as the country’s largest social engineering project. The shift was facilitated by 1) zoning laws that made walkable urban designs illegal, 2) massive subsidies for roads, and 3) finance and real estate industries that are far more comfortable with suburban development. Race played a factor, too, in pushing development out of the cities.

But the pendulum is swinging back to favor walkable urban design, Leinberger contends. Several factors are at play, including a downturn in the market that’s structural, not cyclical, he said. The suburbs are overbuilt, and demographics are changing. In the 1950s, 50% of households had children – today, only 33% do, and in the next few decades that percentage will drop even more. “The demographics are telling us something,” he said.

Chris Leinberger, a developer, UM professor of practice in urban planning and visiting fellow at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Other factors have more to do with attitude. “Boredom is a much underrated motivation for social change,” Leinberger said, adding that people are recognizing how strip malls degrade quality of life.

Also at play: the expense of maintaining a household fleet of vehicles is no longer sustainable, Leinberger said. And a third of Americans don’t drive, either because they’re too young, too old, disabled or disinclined. “I think the days of 15 million in car sales per year are long gone,” he said.

All of this contributes to a structural change taking place in development. And high demand for walkable urban settings puts a price premium in areas like Ann Arbor, he said.

Rail transit plays an important role in making walkable urban design feasible. But paying for it is an issue, especially in an age of declining federal resources. Leinberger said we can learn from the past – 100 years ago, 80% of all rail transit was built by real estate developers, with the rest paid for by power companies.

Leinberger laid out a range of funding options for transit projects, from tax-increment financing to private special assessment districts. He believes the availability of federal funds will decrease, because “we just don’t have the money.” That’s one reason why it’s important to encourage private investment, and to change the requirements that constrain the ability to leverage private dollars for public transit. He cited a nearby example: The proposed Woodward Avenue line in downtown Detroit has backing from private investors, which the federal government initially wasn’t going to include as a match for federal funding.

What’s Happening Locally: WALLY, East-West Rail

There are two local commuter rail efforts: the Washtenaw and Livingston Line, known as WALLY, and an east-west commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Representatives from three municipalities connected with those efforts spoke at Monday’s forum.

Howell

Shea Charles, Howell city manager, gave an overview of his city’s work as it relates to the rail project. Howell would be a terminus for WALLY, which also would include stops in Genoa Township, Hamburg and Whitmore Lake, ultimately ending in Ann Arbor. He noted that the railroad’s owners hope eventually to extend the northern route to Traverse City, and possibly go as far south as Toledo.

Charles described Howell as a classic downtown urban area, with a train depot about 2.5 blocks away from the city’s main intersection of Michigan and Grand River avenues. He said potential development around the depot could include a six-level parking deck, and noted that a portion of the site is a brownfield.

Leinberger was asked to comment on Howell’s plans, as was Susan Zielinski, managing director of UM’s SMART (Sustainable Mobility and Accessibility Research and Transformation) program. Leinberger said if the city was going to have to pay for the commuter line, they’d need to shoot for much higher density to generate more tax revenues. Tax-increment financing was viable, he said. But the problem is that site improvements like housing or retail, which create the additional tax revenue captured by TIF, also create a demand for public services, like police and fire. And if you’re using 20 years worth of TIF revenues to develop the site, other parts of the city will end up subsidizing those public services.

Susan Zielinski, managing director of UM's SMART program. SMART stands for Sustainable Mobility and Accessibility Research and Transformation.

In her response to Howell’s plans, Zielinski characterized the node as one of a string of pearls. She urged the audience to think about how the train connects to other parts of the community, as well as how the stations in different cities connect to each other. She also noted that the goal of transit is accessibility, not mobility for mobility’s sake.

Technology will be able to play a role in making these connections, she said. Imagine using your iPhone to reserve a Zipcar at the next stop, for example, or interconnecting the fares for different systems to make payments easier for commuters.

Ann Arbor

Next up was Eli Cooper, transportation program manager for the city of Ann Arbor, who gave an abbreviated version of presentation he’d made at a Feb. 10 public forum. He described Fuller Road Station as an intermodal “mecca,” with the ultimate goal of creating a hub for commuters into Ann Arbor near one of the city’s major employers, the University of Michigan Health System.

Peter Allen noted that in terms of development, the Broadway Village at Lowertown – a mixed-use project that he described as being  “trapped by the economic downturn” – was only four blocks from the proposed transit station.

Leinberger said the Fuller Road site was “golden” in terms of future development, given its proximity to the Huron River and the premium put on land in that area. He suggested building an underground structure, if possible. Another idea – one he said would likely get Cooper “hung” – was to narrow Fuller Road, making it more walkable.

But fundamentally, a parking structure will under-utilize the land, Leinberger said, and drive out every other type of development. It won’t generate revenues on the site, he said, and in 20 years will be torn down to accommodate something more appropriate – “because the land will be too valuable.”

In her critique, Zielinski said she liked the variety of transit options planned for the site, but thought it should be more of a mixed-use development.

Cooper noted that the site is designated as city parkland, which puts some constraints on development. But he also argued that the project is important because it would support one of the mainstays of the regional and state economy – the University of Michigan. He said that one of the suggestions from the city’s park advisory commission was to find a way to bring more active uses to the site. He said the structure will be built to be strong enough to support additional levels of housing on it in the future, but that finances will drive those decisions. Fundamentally, though, the project must be done in phases. “Crawl before you walk,” he said. “Walk before you run.”

Ypsilanti

The third city project was presented by Richard Murphy, an Ypsilanti city planner who recently accepted a job at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance – a nonprofit led by Conan Smith, who’s also a Washtenaw County commissioner. Ypsilanti’s train depot is in the Depot Town district, located between two parks – Riverside to the south and Frog Island to the north – which draw thousands of people to various festivals each year. The Eastern Michigan University campus to the northwest is another major player, Murphy said, with about 22,000 students and a fast-growing enrollment.

The freighthouse at the train depot is being rehabbed, Murphy said, and there are about 18 acres of a mostly abandoned industrial facility along the river to the north of Depot Town, which could be developed. But “downzoning” has been a trend in the city, he said, shifting toward single-family residential and away from higher-density zoning. Within a quarter-mile radius of the train depot, roughly a third of the land is zoned for single-family homes. There’s also resistance from Depot Town business owners to the commuter rail project, he said, adding that the political consensus for transit-oriented development isn’t there yet.

Murphy also noted that the city might have a “TIF allergy” – they used that strategy to finance redevelopment of the Water Street area along Michigan Avenue, but the land still stands vacant. The city is counting on TIF revenues to help pay $31 million in bonds over a 20-year period.

In responding to the project, Leinberger said that NIMBY opposition can be a critical hurdle to overcome for any type of high-density development. Giving examples from the Washington D.C. area, he said people were finally figuring out that a more walkable, urban environment yields a better quality of life – and accounts for a higher price premium on housing in those kinds of areas.

Leinberger also cautioned that if this region doesn’t invest in the commuter rail, “you’re going to be toast.” To prevent being stuck in a 20th-century economy, he said, rail is key to economic survival.

Southeast Michigan

Wrapping up the presentations was Dick Carlisle of the Ann Arbor planning firm Carlisle/Wortman Associates. Carlisle cited political fragmentation as the single most important obstacle in achieving transit-oriented development. This region has the resources, he said, but not the common vision.

There are over 50 units of government in Washtenaw and Livingston counties, Carlisle noted, and the regional economy will only prosper through collaboration. That effort must include leadership from the universities as well. He proposed forming a Green Growth Alliance, with WALLY as its transit spine, to develop a green and technology-based regional economy via a partnership of the public, private and institutional sectors.

Davy Rothbart signs autographs before the start of Monday's transit forum. The publisher of FOUND Magazine had been speaking at an unrelated event in the same lecture hall, but The Chronicle did find a tenuous connection: In a June 2009 interview on Asylum.com, Rothbart talked about good spots for finding material: "Public transportation like buses and subway trains always seem to attract found stuff."

At left: Architect John Mouat, a member of the Fuller Road Station design team, talks with Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager, before the start of the Feb. 10 citizen participation forum. Mouat is a partner in the Ann Arbor firm of Mitchell and Mouat. (Photos by the writer.)

For Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager, a project like the proposed Fuller Road Station happens “once in a lifetime” – an opportunity for the city, he says, to take a vision and make it reality in a fairly short time.

What it will take to reach that reality was the topic of a Feb. 10 public meeting on the Fuller Road Station, a joint University of Michigan/city of Ann Arbor project. Its first phase entails a parking structure with about 1,000 spaces – nearly 80% of them earmarked for UM use.

But much of the presentation by city staff and members of the design team focused on the broader goals for that site, which they hope will eventually include a train station for commuter rail.

Beyond Phase 1

Eli Cooper began his comments by putting the Fuller Road Station into the context of the city’s overall efforts to increase alternative forms of public transportation. Ann Arbor is a regional employment center, he said, but rather than invest in wider roads and more parking, the long-term goal is to leave the cars outside the city and find other ways to bring people to work.

For this, commuter rail is crucial, he said. That includes a proposed north-south rail known as WALLY, which would run between Ann Arbor and Howell, as well as an Ann Arbor-to-Detroit rail, with stops in Ypsilanti, metro Detroit airport and Dearborn.

These two railroad lines cross but aren’t connected, Cooper said, so the idea was to create a local connector system. The east-west line, owned by the Norfolk Southern Railroad, runs past Washtenaw County’s largest employer – the UM medical complex, with more than 17,000 workers – so it made sense to start there. [The north-south track runs through downtown Ann Arbor.] City staff looked for a site where the concept could actually work, with major roadways and less than three acres of publicly-owned land, near the east-west railroad. Looking at the Fuller Road property, which has been leased by the city to UM since 1993, “it didn’t take a lot of thinking to say, ‘We can do this,’” Cooper said.

Site plan for Phase 1 of the Fuller Road Station. (Image links to larger file)

The concept was brought to city council, which endorsed it, Cooper said. [In May 2009, city council approved $80,000 as its portion of a feasibility study for the project. In August, council approved a professional services contract with JJR for conceptual design, environmental assessment and engineering work, and set a budget of $541,717. The council approved the master plan concept, an additional $111,228 for work by JJR, and a memorandum of understanding with UM in November.]

As for the Detroit-to-Ann Arbor commuter rail project, Cooper noted that a representative from SEMCOG recently made a presentation to the city council, reinforcing that it’s a “go project,” with a target launch date of Oct. 25, 2010. If the commuter rail takes off and several hundred people need a place to park their cars, Amtrak will feel pressure to accommodate those commuters, Cooper said. [Amtrak officials have not committed to moving the train station from its Depot Street location to Fuller Road.] Cooper said that the Ann Arbor Amtrak is the highest-volume station in Michigan, and second only to downtown Chicago along the Chicago-to-Detroit corridor.

Cooper said that 98% of commuters into Ann Arbor come by vehicle, and that Fuller Road is a major artery used by vehicles as well as the AATA and UM bus system. The Fuller Road Station will include an indoor bus waiting room and a loading platform for those buses, with the hopes of getting regional carriers – like Greyhound and Michigan Flyer – to use the facility, too. There will also be bike lockers and bike hoops in the first phase of Fuller Road Station, Cooper said. Eventually, the structure might include showers and a maintenance area for cyclists, he said.

The structure will have about 1,000 parking spaces, plus another 50 spaces in an adjacent surface lot. Cooper said the parking structure is expected to be nearly full from the time it opens in 2012 – there might be need for additional parking when the commuter rail launches, he said.

In wrapping up his presentation, Cooper described the first phase as “modest,” but said that it has already attracted attention from federal transit officials. He’s hopeful it will attract additional investment to bring the future phases into reality as quickly as possible.

What Will It Look Like?

Dick Mitchell, of the Ann Arbor firm of Mitchell and Mouat, is one of the project’s architects, and spoke about the process of designing Fuller Road Station. He began his part of the presentation with three questions that he said they hoped to get feedback on:

1. Are there qualities of the Ann Arbor area that you feel could inspire design of the Fuller Road Station?
2. Are there special experiences, relationships or visual images within this area of Ann Arbor that you feel could be acknowledged and/or reflected in the design of Fuller Road Station?
3. Are there unique qualities about the vision for the master plan of the Fuller Road Station as both a gateway and/or transportation hub that might inspire the design of the station?

Dick Mitchell, an Ann Arbor architect who's working on the design for the Fuller Road Station.

Though all of the people on the design team have been Ann Arbor residents, Mitchell said, he hoped that people from the Fuller Road neighborhood would weigh in with design suggestions, based on their familiarity with the area.

At the city council’s Nov. 5 2009 meeting, Ward 1 representative to the council, Sandi Smith, expressed her hope that the design would be significant, and Ward 2 representative Tony Derezinski echoed that sentiment, saying that it would be a welcome center for Ann Arbor.

At the Feb. 10 meeting on Fuller Road Station, Mitchell said his team had spent considerable time thinking about the site and its connection to the Huron River and river valley. Using maps of the area, he showed how the site fits into the system of city parks along that stretch and the county’s Border-to-Border trails, describing the river as “an incredible force.”

While the natural environment dominates the east and north, the more urban environment – including the “citadel-like presence” of the UM medical complex – dominates the areas to the south and west. The medical buildings, with horizontal lines interrupted by vertical spires, give the design team its “architectural language,” Mitchell said. “We don’t know what that means to us yet, but we’re pondering.”

Later in the meeting, someone in the audience asked whether the design for the Fuller Road Station would be like the parking structure at Fourth & Washington, which Mitchell and Mouat also designed. It’s going to be quite different, Mitchell responded, “but just as nice.”

Questions from the Audience

The 30 or so people who attended Wednesday’s forum, held in city council chambers, were given notecards and asked to write whatever questions or comments they had about the project. Those cards were collected and Connie Pulcipher, a senior planner with the city, read some of them to the group. Different members of the project team fielded the questions – others, particularly those related to financial concerns, were deferred. Pulcipher said that all questions and comments would be compiled and posted on the city’s website for the project.

Here’s a sampling:

Will traffic lights be added to the entrance off of Fuller Road? Les Sipowski, a traffic engineer with the city, said they didn’t believe traffic signals were necessary. Boulevards like Fuller Road have “a ton of capacity,” he said. Two new crossovers between the eastbound and westbound lanes will be added.

Will the existing soccer field be removed? No. The field to the east of the site will remain.

Will users of the nearby parks continue to have free parking? Eli Cooper said there’s a firm commitment to the parks that during off-peak hours on nights and weekends, parking will continue to be available.

What’s the likelihood that non-residents commuting into Ann Arbor will actually use alternative transit, even if this station is built? Eli Cooper said there was no research specifically tied to the use of the station, but that surveys conducted to study the feasibility of commuter rail between Lansing and Detroit indicated that people would be willing to use that form of transportation. Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, said the university provides a range of alternative transportation options, and that now up to 40% of employees come to work in something other than a single-occupancy vehicle. [However, efforts by the AATA over the last year  to introduce express commuter bus service from Chelsea to Ann Arbor and from Canton to Ann Arbor have not been as successful as hoped in developing ridership.]

Is there evidence of future need for this facility? Eli Cooper pointed to SEMCOG studies forecasting that Ann Arbor would add 18,900 jobs through 2035. However, since the city’s population is expected to grow by only 1,800 people, he said, that means a lot of workers will be needing transportation to get from their homes to their workplaces in Ann Arbor. Jim Kosteva added that another reason for the facility is to reduce the area’s carbon footprint. He also noted that a significant number of UM employees live along the proposed commuter rail route between Ann Arbor and Detroit, particularly in the Ypsilanti area.

What plans does UM have for the former Pfizer site? Jim Kosteva said the university is undergoing a major planning effort for what’s now called the North Campus Research Complex, or NCRC, led by the Medical School, the UM Health System and the College of Engineering. As it relates to the Fuller Road Station, he said they expect the area to see employment growth, which will add to the need for transportation as people shuttle between the NCRC, the medical campus, central campus and their homes.

Will there be any private development at the site? Peer hospitals like the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic have supported nearby development of hotels, restaurants and retail, creating a real sense of place. Does the university plan to do the same near the Fuller Road Station? Eli Cooper said there were ample opportunities for that type of development in the nearby Lower Town area. Jim Kosteva said that UM is focusing on the delivery of health care. They do operate the Med Inn, he said, which has 30 rooms. Sue Gott, a university planner, added that UM’s mission is focused on academics, research and clinical care. They look to the private sector to provide other kinds of development. Kosteva then noted that the hospital’s cafeteria food is quite good.

At left: Cresson Slotten, senior project manager with the city, sorts through questions and comments written on notecards by people attending the Feb. 10 Fuller Road Station forum. Slotten is consulting with Eli Cooper, center, and Dave Dykman, a project manager for the city.

Isn’t the proposed train service a demonstration project? Yes, said Eli Cooper, the initial service planned as soon as the fall of 2010 would be a smaller scale service. [See Chronicle coverage of the Feb. 1 city council meeting where Carmine Polombo of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)  gave an update on proposed commuter rail service between Detroit and Ann Arbor. Polombo described the initial service offerings as likely to be limited to day trips for special events, like UM football games.]

What’s the estimated increase in train traffic? The SEMCOG demonstration service will start with four round trips each day, increasing to eight over time, Eli Cooper said. He envisions the service will eventually have between 16-18 round trips daily, with three to four per hour during peak commuting times.

What will the impact be on surrounding home values – for example, on Cedar Bend Drive? Eli Cooper said that in other cities where he’s lived – New York and Philadelphia – there’s a premium associated with housing that has immediate access to rail transportation.

What’s the timeframe for the commuter rail? A feasibility study will be completed this year, Eli Cooper said. Two years after that, an environmental impact study will be conducted, followed by engineering and design for an additional two to three years. It would take two or three years to build, he said – so the entire project would likely take a decade to complete. Coming up with local funding would streamline the process, he said, rather than relying on federal and state dollars. He projected a range of three to ten years, “if ever.”

Will UM compensate city voters for the long-term use of parkland? Eli Cooper said there’s a continuing commitment to city parks, through the city’s memorandum of understanding with UM. The facility will be city-owned, he said, so there’ll be no transfer of parkland to the university. And since the parkland isn’t going to be sold, he said, it’s not necessary to bring the city charter into the discussion. [He was referring to a charter requirement, approved by voters in November 2008, that the sale of city parkland be authorized through a voter referendum.]

Has a land swap with UM been considered to compensate for the use of city parkland? The lease of the land to UM for a parking lot generates revenues for the parks system, Eli Cooper said. The project team, he added, welcomed suggestions for how they can enhance the park user’s experience. He noted that they were planning to integrate “active art” into the facility’s design, though he did not specify what that might entail.

Why will the city be getting less money from UM in the future than it does from the current annual leasing agreement of $31,000? Connie Pulcipher said they couldn’t provide the answer to financial questions that night. Jim Kosteva, representing UM, read from the memorandum of understanding between the university and the city, which states that UM will be paying 78% of a $24,846 operating cost, and that money will go to the city’s parks and recreation unit. That amount – $24,846 – will increase by 3% each year over a 30-year period. In addition, UM will make two payments of $31,057 to parks and recreation between Sept. 1, 2010 through Aug. 31, 2012 – the period of construction. [.pdf file of the memorandum of understanding] The current surface parking lot at the site has 250 spaces.

Who’s paying for all this? Eli Cooper called the financing “very much a work in progress.” The city is working with the Congressional delegation that represents this area to help secure federal funding, and is working with the Michigan Department of Transportation to find state dollars. There will also be revenue generated from users of the facility, he said, adding that more financial analysis is needed.

[According to the memorandum of understanding, UM will pay for 78% of the cost of design and construction of the facility; the city of Ann Arbor will pay 22%. According to the city's capital improvements plan, which the city council postponed for consideration at its Feb.1 meeting, the city's share of $5.36 million would come from the city’s economic development fund. Minus the city's obligation to Google for parking incentives, the economic development fund currently has a balance of around $700,000. ]

Why not have a real public hearing? The city staff has been directed by council to fully engage the public, Eli Cooper said. He has made presentations at the park advisory commission, the planning commission and city council. There are requirements related to public hearings for the environmental impact study, he said, as well as at other points in the development process.

What are the plans for public art? After the forum, The Chronicle queried Dave Dykman, a project manager for the city, about a topic raised at the Feb. 9 meeting of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission. At that meeting, commissioners discussed the possibility of an art consultant being hired to oversee the integration of public art into the Fuller Road Station’s design. Dykman clarified that the project had a line-item for public art at about $250,000. He said it wasn’t clear yet whether an art consultant would be paid for out of those funds, or whether other funding would be available.

Comments from the Audience

Several people gave comments as well. Here’s a few:

• Preserve as many trees as possible, include underground parking, and try to minimize the structure by blending it into the existing natural area on the site.
• Include a place for large meetings.
• Restrooms, showers and other amenities should be fully accessible.
• In the design, consider the entire history of transportation and the surrounding natural environment, from the beginning of time.

All questions and comments will be posted on the city’s Fuller Road Station website, Connie Pulcipher said, where other information about the project is available. She also encouraged people to sign up for email alerts from the city about upcoming meetings, or to look at the Tree Town Log, a city calendar of events and meetings.

Project Timeline

Dave Dykman, a project manager for the city, concluded the meeting by giving an overview of the project schedule. He noted that the conceptual plan has been approved by both the city council and the UM regents.

An environmental assessment is ongoing, and is expected to conclude in the fall of 2010. Dykman said they don’t expect any significant findings, but it’s a necessary component for federal funding.

Efforts at community engagement will continue. There will be a presentation to the city’s park advisory commission at its March 16 meeting, and another public meeting similar to Wednesday’s will be held at a yet-to-be-determined date. In addition, the project will be taken to the city’s planning commission for approval, possibly this spring or summer, and there will be a public hearing associated with that process.

In the late spring, workers will relocate utilities that are on the site, including an electrical transmission line that runs above the property and a major sanitary sewer pipe located underneath the proposed building’s footprint.

Design and engineering for the project began about a month ago, Dykman said. The plan will likely be presented to city council in mid-summer, with a public hearing at that time as well. Early foundation work would start next winter, with construction through 2012.

The commission passed a resolution urging the city council formally to endorse the millage, though it’s up to the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners to decide whether to put the millage on the ballot. It’s not yet clear the board will do that.

Greenbelt commissioners also discussed the implications of new, lower appraisals that had just been received on the Braun and Gould properties in Ann Arbor Township. The city already has binding purchase agreements with the owners based on older, higher appraised values, but recently learned that new appraisals will result in fewer federal matching funds for the acquisitions. The city could be on the hook for more money than was anticipated to close these deals.

Related to that, some commissioners raised concerns over information they’d received last month from the city attorney’s office, which appeared to be in conflict with what they were being told by staff at Wednesday’s meeting.

Support for Natural Areas Millage

The county’s Natural Areas Preservation Program (NAPP) is funded by a countywide millage that voters approved in 2000, taking effect in 2002. At 0.25 mills, it raises about $3 million annually, and expires next year.

At an administrative briefing last month, some county commissioners expressed reservations about whether to put the millage renewal on the ballot. Barbara Bergman, a commissioner representing District 8 in Ann Arbor, said she’d be reluctant to do so, given the need for funding to support human services nonprofits. Commissioners and other elected county officials have discussed putting a new human services millage on the ballot this year, though no formal proposal has been made. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Natural Areas Tax Up for Renewal"]

At Wednesday’s meeting of the greenbelt commission, there was some discussion about whether the millage renewal was considered likely to pass, if it were on the ballot. “I think any millage is controversial right now,” said Laura Rubin, who chairs GAC and co-sponsored the commission’s resolution urging the city council’s support, along with vice-chair Jennifer S. Hall.

Peter Allen asked whether anyone knew what else is on the ballot at this point. Carsten Hohnke, a greenbelt commissioner who also represents Ward 5 on city council, said there were a number of possibilities, but it wasn’t clear what would ultimately be put before voters. He asked Ginny Troccio of The Conservation Fund, a consulting firm that’s managing the greenbelt program for the city, whether the county board had taken any action related to the millage. She said they hadn’t, and that the county need to act by June or July to get it on the November ballot.

Dan Ezekiel expressed his strong support for the millage renewal. He noted that Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program had partnered with the county to buy three high-quality properties: the Fox Science Preserve on Peters Road and Scio Preserve on Scio-Church Road, both in Scio Township, and Meyer Preserve on Prospect Road in Superior Township. He said he hoped council would endorse the millage.

Mike Garfield, who’s also director of the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, said NAPP has been terrific for the county. When it first launched, he noted, there was some talk about the possibility of the program including farmland preservation. So Garfield proposed a friendly amendment to the resolution, asking that council consider urging the county to enlarge the scope of the program to include that type of acquisition. [The city's greenbelt program already includes farmland preservation – see Chronicle coverage "Frederick Farm in Line to Join Greenbelt"]

Commissioners discussed whether someone from the greenbelt staff or commission should talk with representatives from the county before voting on the resolution. Gil Omenn felt that the resolution might blindside the county. He could imagine that, in general, there would be fears about putting millages on the ballot, and that the idea of expanding the program’s scope might make county commissioners uneasy. Rubin said it might be wise for someone from the greenbelt commission to speak at an upcoming county board meeting, to talk about the value of the county’s natural area preservation efforts.

Ezekiel weighed in with the view that they should vote on the resolution now. The county board is going through some very serious deliberations regarding its budget, he said, and it’s important to show support for the millage. “The voters will decide,” he said.

After further discussion, commissioners agreed to support Garfield’s amendment. The amended resolution passed unanimously.

Later this week, Trocchio told The Chronicle that commissioners subsequently requested more information about the millage. The issue will likely come up again at the greenbelt commission’s next meeting, she said, perhaps in the form of an additional or further amended resolution.

Appraisals Increase City’s Share of Funding

The final item handled at the meeting was a report from Peg Kohring of The Conservation Fund. New appraisals for two properties – the 286-acre Braun farm and 51 acres of Gould land, both in Ann Arbor Township – had been requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP. The city is requesting FRPP funds to help pay for the purchase of development rights to those properties, but previous appraisals were more than a year old by the time the federal program accepted all of the application paperwork, according to Kohring. [The city council has already approved the purchases, but the deals haven't yet closed, pending FRPP funding.]

At its January meeting, the greenbelt commission had recommended that the city council authorize the new appraisals. On Wednesday, Kohring reported that the Braun farm, which originally appraised for just over $4 million, was now appraised at $2,107,500. For the Gould property, the appraisal was lowered from $691,000 to $385,000.

In response, the available FRPP funds dropped from $1.43 million for the Braun farm to just over $1 million, Kohring said. For the Gould land, FRPP funds fell from $256,000 to $192,500. To cover the difference, an additional $377,000 is needed for the Braun property, and an additional $63,500 for the Gould property – those costs could be split with Ann Arbor Township, if township officials agree, Kohring said. The city had previously committed to paying $1,363,500 for Braun and $269,000 for Gould.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund said that the next steps would be to ask city council to approve the additional funds. It takes the FRPP between three months to a year to process the federal portion, she said, adding that she’s been told the FRPP would expedite this application because the deals need to close by Sept. 30, 2010.

Peter Allen asked what the implications would be if the commission postponed action until its next meeting. Trocchio said they’ve been working with the landowners since 2007, and both owners are “pretty antsy.”

Jennifer Hall confirmed with Trocchio and Kohring that the city had binding purchase agreements with the landowners. Allen said the commission was hearing for the first time that the financing contingency in the agreements wasn’t valid. “What we’re hearing tonight is the reverse of what we were told by the attorney at the last meeting,” he said, referring to Mary Fales from the city attorney’s office. He suggested scheduling another meeting – perhaps an emergency meeting – to bring back someone from the city attorney’s office to clarify the situation.

Gil Omenn, describing the news as a “pretty unexpected turn of events,” said he couldn’t imagine the need for such urgency, given that they had until Sept. 30 to close the deal. However, Kohring cautioned that given the time it takes for FRPP to process an application, the commission would need to act in March in order to be done by September.

Omenn wondered whether the city would be required to pay the full purchase price, if the FRPP funds don’t come through. Trocchio deferred that question to the city attorney’s office.

Hall said that they wanted to do right by the landowners, but they also needed to do right by the city’s taxpayers, given the very different land values. It was important to have all the relevant information before making a decision, she said.

Carsten Hohnke clarified that if Ann Arbor Township didn’t agree to pay half of the extra funds, the city would be obligated to pay the entire additional amount. Kohring confirmed that was correct, but noted that preserving the property was a top priority for township officials.

The commission agreed to delay a decision, and directed staff to have someone from the city attorney’s office come to their next meeting. Omenn suggested getting written advice from the attorney’s office in advance of the meeting. Calling that a great idea, Hohnke asked Trocchio to request a written opinion clarifying the issues in the existing contract. There is a general view, he said, that the city’s exposure is different than what they’d previously understood it to be.

Present: Laura Rubin (chair), Jennifer Santi Hall (vice-chair), Mike Garfield, Peter Allen, Dan Ezekiel, Gil Omenn, Carsten Hohnke, Tom Bloomer, Catherine Reising

Next meeting: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners boardroom, 220 N. Main, Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The barns and out buildings at Staebler Farm, on Plymouth Road in Superior Township. Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation bought the farm in 2001, and will be developing a master plan for the property in the coming years. (Photos by The Chronicle.)

“I’m open to suggestions,” Staebler told The Chronicle, “and willing to give up plenty of what I know.”

During their presentation about a five-year master plan for the parks system, county staff outlined plans for the Staebler Farm – a proposed $2.3 million investment – as well as for several other county parks, recreational facilities and preserves. It was one of three public meetings to get input on the master plan; the next meeting will be on Wednesday, Feb. 3, at the Dexter Library, starting at 7 p.m.

A draft of the master plan – which is also available online – includes items in an extensive capital improvement program that was approved last year by the county’s Parks & Recreation Commission. Several of the largest projects are planned for Rolling Hills Park, including the addition of a dog park, an expansion of the water park and construction of softball fields and an amphitheater. The county also plans to invest nearly $12 million in greenway and non-motorized trails over the next five years.

Shaping the Master Plan

The Washtenew County Parks & Recreation department manages 3,654 acres of land, including more than 1,800 acres protected through the Natural Areas Preservation Program. The parks system has 35 permanent employees who work as park planners, administrators, supervisors and field workers, among other positions. The department also hires as many as 400 seasonal workers throughout the year to provide services such as life guarding and facilities staffing.

The parks system receives most of its funding from two county millages, each levied at 0.2367 mill. One millage, which runs through 2020, pays for capital improvements and park development; the other goes to park operations, and expires in 2016. Other funding sources include fees, federal and state grants, concessions and private donations.

In addition, a third millage – at 0.25 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually, according to Bob Tetens, the county’s parks director. That millage expires in 2011, and would need to be put on the ballot for renewal this year. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Natural Areas Tax Up for Renewal"]

The department, with a budget of about $8.5 million, does not receive support from the county’s general fund. It has a fund balance of $21.5 million for parks and recreation, and another $6 million fund balance for the natural areas program.

Those fund balances will be used for some of the projects in the pipeline, as laid out by the master plan. The parks system updates its master plan every five years – for the current plan, the county hired the private consulting firm URS Corp., which in turn enlisted the planning firm JJR. The process of drafting the plan included examining state and national recreational trends, reviewing the county’s demographics and meeting with county recreation staff and officials.

In addition to the public meetings on Jan. 26 and Feb. 3, the master plan will be open for public comment at the March 9 meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission. That meeting runs from 7-9 p.m. at the parks administration office at County Park Farm, 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor. Park planner Richard Kent said the commission will likely adopt the master plan at its regular monthly meeting in April, at the earliest. Then the plan will be sent for approval at the state level – a requirement necessary in order to be eligible for state recreation funding.

Parks Projects through 2014

Within its broad goals – such as preserving the county’s natural resources and promoting an active lifestyle for community residents – the parks system has a range of specific projects outlined in the master plan over the next five years. [.pdf file of complete parks capital improvement program budget] Here’s a sampling.

Rolling Hills Park, Ypsilanti Township

Just over $13 million in projects – or about 40% of the park’s five-year capital improvement program – have been identified for this 363-acre park off of Stony Creek Road, between Bemis and Merritt in Ypsilanti Township. Proposed actions over the next few years include continued upgrades to the playground, tree house, pavilions, dock and fishing pier. About $3.2 million is earmarked for work on paved trails and the main road. Another big-ticket item is $3.6 million to expand the water park and build a promenade and new bath house.

In addition, the master plan for Rolling Hills calls for expanding a disc golf course, constructing a mountain bike course, putting in a dog park, and building an amphitheater and softball facilities. The department also has allotted $50,000 to conduct a feasibility study for a new recreation center. Other projects include installing soccer fields, expanding the park’s prairie acreage, installing interpretive signs in natural areas and gardens, and forming a trail connection with the adjacent Hewen’s Creek Park.

County Farm Park and Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, Ann Arbor

The 141-acre County Farm Park is located on Ann Arbor’s east side, at the southwest corner of Washtenaw and Platt – behind the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center. For the park, proposed projects include ongoing playground improvements, renovation of the Platt Road entrance, renovation of the Platt Road pavilion restrooms, adding restrooms and water service at the Medford Lot entrance, reconstructing the Platt parking lot, replacing signs at the entrances, renovating the trail system and replacing the fitness trail equipment.

The Platt Road entrance to County Farm Park, where the administrative offices for Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation are also located.

Other anticipated projects in the master plan include expanding natural areas in the park, reducing the acreage of mowed lawn, renovating the perennial gardens and pergola, collaborating with stakeholders on creek restoration, increasing programming related to horticultural gardens and creating a system of signs for the park’s planting areas.

Action items for the recreation center include making improvements and updates to the building, investigating solar applications, and improving connections to County Farm Park and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Independence Lake Park, Webster Township

Located northwest of Ann Arbor, Independence Lake Park is slated for $3.3 million in proposed projects over the next few years. That includes a new nature center, a new boardwalk and observation deck, and a new access drive, among other projects.

Other facilities and parks included in the master plan are Parker Mill in Ann Arbor Township; Sharon Mills Park in Sharon Township; Pierce Lake Golf Course and Park in Chelsea; Park Northfield in Northfield Township; Park Lyndon of Lyndon Township; the Osborne Mill Preserve in Scio Township; and Cavanaugh Lake Park in Sylvan Township.

Greenways and Non-Motorized Trails

The county park system is looking at investing nearly $12 million over the next five years in greenways and non-motorized trails – or 34% of the total capital improvement program. That includes ongoing development of the county’s Border-to-Border Trail system, as well as $600,000 each year made available to local municipalities for connecting their parks with the Border-to-Border network.

Staebler Farm

And, of course, there’s Donald Staebler’s farm in Superior Township. The master plan calls for improving the entrance drives, possibly renovating the farm house and coming up with other projects in a master site development plan. Nearly $2.3 million is allocated for this project.

Mary Staebler, Donald Staebler’s sister-in-law and caretaker who also attended the Jan. 26 meeting, seemed to have faith in the county’s ability to take care of the farm.

“They have done such an excellent job on everything they’ve done,” she said. “I’m sure they’ll do equally as well with the Staebler Farm.”

About the author: Helen Nevius, a student at Eastern Michigan University, is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

But it was an item not on the agenda that yielded the most animated discussion on Wednesday: A countywide millage for Washtenaw County’s Natural Areas Preservation Program. The tax, which was first approved by voters in November of 2000 and took effect in 2002, will expire in 2011 and would need to go back to voters this year for renewal. Based on comments at Wednesday’s briefing, the millage renewal might face resistance from some commissioners.

County Parks and Natural Areas: Too Much Money?

The discussion began as a point of confusion. Commissioner Ken Schwartz had seen a meeting notice for the Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Committee (ALPAC), and wondered if it was a new group created after the recent dissolution of the county’s planning advisory commission. It was not new, said Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel – ALPAC had been formed years ago as part of the county’s purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) program, and the group makes recommendations on possible PDR actions.

ALPAC differs from the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC), which advises the county on its Natural Areas Preservation Program. When someone asked about the status of NAPP’s millage, Hedger said he’d just spoken about it earlier that day with Bob Tetens, the county’s director of parks and recreation. The tax – at 0.25 mills – would need to go on the ballot this year. Commissioners commented that it wasn’t a good time to be doing that, given the economy, which prompted commissioner Jeff Irwin to say, “Better than after it expires.”

Commissioner Wes Prater then brought up two concerns. He said NAPP had amassed millions of dollars in its fund balance “that’s just laying there, not being used.” Secondly, he said, the general public doesn’t have sufficient information about the program. People need to know how to apply for it, he said, and the county needs to invest those dedicated funds “and not pile up a huge surplus.” Prater said he was also troubled because he felt the fund balance for parks and recreation was also too high.

Schwartz said he’d talked to officials in Northfield Township, who didn’t know how NAPP worked. “Nobody does,” said Prater.

Prater added that he wouldn’t advise putting a NAPP renewal on the ballot with such a high fund balance.

Commissioner Barbara Bergman said that notwithstanding the fund balance, she couldn’t see asking citizens to support a natural areas millage when human services are in need. Bergman has previously said she favors a millage for human services, an idea floated last year by several elected county officials. In its efforts to deal with a projected $30 million, two-year deficit in 2010 and 2011, the county cut its funding for nonprofits in the human services and children’s well-being sectors by 20%, to $1.015 million.

Funding for NAPP, Parks & Rec

Reached by phone on Thursday, Tetens said that NAPP’s current fund balance stands at $6.019 million. Since the program began, the county has acquired 17 properties, he said, including 44 wooded acres in Superior Township purchased just last week. (This land is not connected with the property at the heart of a settlement deal recently in dispute in Superior Township, he clarified.)

NAPP is an initiative of the county’s board of commissioners, Tetens said. Though managed by his department, it’s up to the board to decide whether to ask voters for a renewal of the millage.

Strategizing over the millage renewal began months ago. From the minutes of the June 2009 meeting of the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee:

The Committee returned to their discussion concerning the potential for renewal of the millage which supports the Natural Areas Preservation Program. [Deputy parks director Tom] Freeman reported on the results of the Preserve Washtenaw meeting, held May 19th at the Augusta Township Hall. A significant portion of that meeting was devoted to discussion of possible approaches to support renewal of the millage. Preserve Washtenaw members voiced their conviction that it would be important for each of the member organizations to pass a resolution supporting renewal of the millage. Those resolutions could be forwarded to the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners and would hopefully contribute to a decision to place the millage on the ballot for consideration by county residents.

The Committee discussed the idea voiced by Preserve Washtenaw. It was agreed the approach would generate valuable support and provide necessary encouragement to the Commissioners. The Committee further determined that it would be valuable to develop a larger list of organizations that could be contacted to solicit resolutions of support. A significant collection of organizations expressing their support – recognizing the value of the Natural Areas Preservation Program and recommending placement of the millage on the ballot for renewal – could provide the influence necessary to convince the Board of Commissioners.

Tetens said that NAPP has a very robust marketing effort, with staff speaking regularly to civic organizations, local officials and other groups countywide, and hundreds of parcels have been considered for the program. Because some of the acquisitions take years to complete, money in the fund balance is earmarked accordingly. And now, with 17 preserves covering more than 1,800 acres, they’ll also need to ensure there are sufficient funds to maintain those properties, Tetens said. If the millage isn’t renewed, he said, some of the remaining fund balance might need to be reserved to take care of future upkeep.

Separately, the county’s parks and recreation department is funded through two millages, at 0.2367 mills each. The combined fund balance from those millages is currently $21.5 million, Tetens said. Of those two, the millage for land acquisition and development, first approved by voters in 1976, was most recently renewed in 2008 for a 10-year period, starting this year. The parks operations millage runs through 2016.

Though the fund balance level is over $21 million now, Tetens said, the department has plans to use that money for upgrading facilities over the next five years. Projects at the 363-acre Rolling Hills Park are expected to cost nearly $14 million, for example – other projects are planned at County Farm Park, Independence Lake, the Pierce Lake Golf Course and the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center.

What’s more, Tetens said, the revenues from those millages will likely decline in coming years, due to lower property values.

The department’s annual budget is about $8.5 million – it does not receive support from the county’s general fund. There are about three dozen full-time employees in the department, but as many as 400 seasonal employees during the summer.

Back to the Briefing: Next Week’s Agenda

As discussed at Wednesday’s administrative briefing, the main item on the agenda for the Feb. 3 Ways & Means Committee – on which all commissioners serve, and which meets immediately prior to the board meeting – is a resolution regarding the county administrator’s job. The resolution would authorize negotiations to begin with Verna McDaniel, current deputy administrator, to fill the position vacated by Bob Guenzel, who is retiring in May. The goal would be to complete negotiations by mid-March.

Typically, items are considered at the Ways & Means Committee, then taken up at the board meeting two weeks later for a final vote. However, Rolland Sizemore Jr., the board’s chair, told commissioners on Wednesday that he plans to bring this resolution to a vote at the Feb. 3 board meeting as well. There are issues coming up soon, he said, including decisions involving the Detroit Region Aerotropolis and Ann Arbor SPARK. “She needs to be in place,” Sizemore said.

Ann Arbor SPARK, which is funded in part by the county, is on the agenda for the board’s Feb. 4 working session, where commissioners will get an annual report from the economic development agency’s CEO, Mike Finney. Tony VanDerworp, the county’s director of the department of energy and economic development, will also make a presentation on that new department. He’ll also give updates on the Ann Arbor Success project and the Eastern Leaders Group – SPARK is a partner in both of those efforts.

Recycling totes and a trash cart await collection in Ann Arbor. The totes will be replaced with bins similar to the blue trash cart in mid-2010. (Photo by The Chronicle.)

Although Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, is listed as the author of this piece, he received “a boxload of help” from Adrienne Marino, Tom McMurtrie, and Nancy Stone.

The SOE report is developed by the city’s environmental commission and designed as a citizen’s reference tool on environmental issues and as an atlas of the management strategies underway that are intended to conserve and protect our environment. The newest version of the report is organized around 10 environmental goals developed by the environmental commission and adopted by the city council in 2007. This installment focuses on responsible resource use.

All installments of the series are available here: Environmental Indicator Series.

With the closing of the 2009 holiday season, and many of us surrounded by lots of new “stuff” – including the associated boxes and packaging – and even a few of us with New Year’s resolutions to “simplify” our life in the coming new year, it seems like a good time to talk about all of the stuff we buy, use, reuse, recycle, and then throw out in Ann Arbor.

This year, coincidentally, is also the start of our 40th year of recycling in Ann Arbor, starting with a drop off station at Arborland in 1970, some curbside collection in 1978, and in 1991, an environmental bond that brought curbside collection to all Ann Arbor residents.

This installment of the series summarizes our environmental indicators on municipal solid waste (MSW) – the total amount of waste that is landfilled, composted, or recycled in our community.

Putting waste into a landfill has financial and environmental costs. So we look to recycling and composting rates as a measure of success, because recycling and composting divert waste from landfills. Recycling is also one of the least expensive ways for the city to reduce its carbon footprint. The energy used to recycle materials is typically far less than the energy used to create products from virgin materials.

Achieving our current goal of 60% diversion, and our ultimate goal – to produce zero waste – will require more hard work.

Overall, Ann Arbor diverts a large proportion of its total waste compared to other communities statewide as well as nationwide. We begin with a look at national and state patterns, before focusing on Ann Arbor’s indicators.

National Diversion Efforts

Let’s start by taking a look at the national level. The EPA reports that, “In 2008, Americans generated about 250 million tons of trash and recycled and composted 83 million tons of this material, equivalent to a 33.2 percent recycling rate. On average, we recycled and composted 1.5 pounds of our individual waste generation of 4.5 pounds per person per day.”

National municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling rates from 1960-2008. In green is the total tonnage recycled. In orange is the percent of the total stream that is recycled. The divergence of the graphs after 1990 means that even though total recycling has gone up, the U.S. has generated an even greater amount of waste.

(Source: USEPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008)

Overall in the U.S., 54% of total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is discarded in landfills – the rest is recovered through recycling or combusted (i.e., burned) with some energy recovery. [Ann Arbor does not burn any of its waste.]

In the U.S., 54.2% of waste is discarded in landfills, 33.2% is recycled, and 12.6% is burned.

How does Michigan compare to the rest of the U.S.?

State Of Michigan’s Diversion Efforts

The following is taken from Expanding Recycling in Michigan, April 2006, a report prepared by Public Sector Consultants Inc. for Michigan Recycling Partnership:

Ironically, while Michigan is nationally recognized as a leader in conservation and environmental protection, the state is woefully behind its neighboring states and the nation in its MSW recycling efforts.

• Michigan’s recycling rate of 20 percent is lower than the other Great Lakes states (30 percent) and the U.S. (27 percent) averages.
• Michigan’s recycling rate decreased by 20 percent from 1994 to 2004, while every other state in the region had at least a marginal increase in recycling.
• The per capita recycling rate (0.38 tons/year/person) has remained almost stagnant and continues to be below the regional and national averages (0.44 and 0.46, respectively).
• Unlike many states, Michigan does not collect or require reporting of MSW recycling data; therefore, Michigan does not have the ability to measure the state’s recycling performance or its handling, collection, transport, and marketing of recyclable materials.
• Michigan’s recycling program is funded at a fraction of the level of other Great Lakes state programs and ranks 41st out of 48 states that reported their allocations for recycling.
• Only 37 percent of Michigan residents have access to curbside recycling, the lowest percentage of all the states in the region.
• Michigan has not invested in developing or sustaining markets for recycled materials, and some businesses have to import recycled materials from other states because of the inconsistency in local supplies.

So the Michigan story is pretty sad. A recent press release by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment reported on the decline in solid waste disposal in Michigan and the financial effects:

DEQ Interim Director Jim Sygo warned that the sharp decrease in solid waste disposal would impact the state’s ability to ensure that its waste stream was safe and protective of the environment.

“Michigan’s solid waste program is funded from a 21-cents-per-ton fee on solid waste disposed in Michigan landfills,” said Sygo. “This continued decline in disposal means fewer resources available to our department, and has serious implications for Michigan’s ability to continue the current level of permitting, inspections, and oversight of solid waste management in the state.”

Michigan’s 21-cents-per-ton fee is the lowest in the Great Lakes Region. Based on the capacity used during FY 2009, the reduction of waste disposed, and additional permitted landfill capacity, it is estimated that Michigan landfills have approximately 25 years of remaining disposal capacity.

Maybe it’s just me, but using Michigan land to store trash ought to be really expensive.

Ann Arbor’s Diversion Efforts

Here in Ann Arbor, the story is happier for a number of reasons. Most important is the millage that provides sustainable funding for residential and commercial recycling, including the infrastructure to collect, sort and process these materials for resale. That’s a millage that the city council can enact under state enabling legislation – it appears as “CITY REFUSE” on Ann Arbor property tax bills.

Ann Arbor also has a long history of public education by local government and nonprofits highlighting the benefits of recycling. The Ann Arbor recycling program started in 1970 with a grassroots effort that has continued to today. We have over a 90% participation rate in our single and multi-family recycling program.

Where do we want to be?

One of the city’s 10 environmental goals – responsible resource use – is to produce zero waste. Zero waste is an ambitious goal, but it effectively captures the idea that as a community we don’t want to be wasting resources. While we are not close to meeting the goal of zero waste, every five years we develop a solid waste plan for the city that sets intermediate targets. As we implement the solid waste plan, we move closer to meeting that larger goal.

The goals set in the most recent solid waste plan are:

Achieve a residential waste diversion rate of 60%, equivalent to 31,000 tons/year (for reference, the 1999/2000 recovery was 50%, equivalent to 26,000 tons/year), and an overall diversion goal (including the entire commercial sector) of 60%, equivalent to 40,200 tons/year for both residential and commercial locations.

Our residential waste diversion rate in 2008 was 54%.

In Ann Arbor 46% of solid waste is landfilled, 28% is recycled, and 26% is composted.

Overall we are doing very well compared to measures at the national and state levels. There are several indicators we can use as we look at our overall waste, composting, and recycling initiatives.

Total waste per capita

Landfilled Waste Per Capita

One measurement the city uses as an indicator is the amount of landfilled waste per capita: How much stuff are we each generating on average and how does that compare with some national average?

This number is calculated by weighing the contents of the solid waste residential trucks and dividing by the current census population (excluding the University of Michigan). Looking at the chart below, the amount of waste we are generating per person in Ann Arbor is pretty steady. The good news is that it is lower than the national average. The bad news is that our residential waste disposal is slowly going up instead of down.

Annual Waste Per Capita in Ann Arbor is significantly lower than the national average.

So Ann Arbor’s indicator for total waste per capita is green (our current state is pretty good), with a level arrow (we’re not getting better and not doing dramatically worse).

But this isn’t the whole story.

Looking at annual waste by pound includes all the solid waste we put out to the curb in trash carts. Ways to make our landfilled waste numbers drop include reducing waste at the source (by selecting products in recyclable packaging and purchasing items in bulk) and recycling and composting more.

It is possible to compost food scraps at home (or use your sink disposal) so that heavy organic material that really doesn’t belong in a landfill never makes it into the “waste” stream. In addition, the city expanded our seasonal composting cart collection program this year in fall 2009 – residents can now put uncooked fruits and vegetable food wastes into the compost carts.

Total amount landfilled

Total Landfilled Waste

We’ve already looked at the per-person numbers for landfilled waste. So now let’s take a look at the total amount of waste we landfill.

This is an important measure to look at because it quantifies the amount of material that is now a pure expense to the city and won’t provide any further value – that is, until the economics of mining landfills for materials starts to make sense.

These landfill tons include residential curbside, multi-family, and commercial locations. Data for 2002-2003 are estimated based on 2001 and 2004 data.

Ann Arbor's total amount of landfilled waste is more now than it was in the early 2000s.

This chart shows that we are landfilling less now – in the late 2000s – than we were in the late 1990s. And unfortunately, we are landfilling more than we were just a few years ago.

So Ann Arbor’s indicator for total amount landfilled is yellow (fair) with a downward arrow (we’re doing worse than before).

One thing to note is that landfilling in Michigan is incredibly cheap and not for very good reasons. The true cost of landfilling in Michigan is still pretty high when all of the costs are considered – especially the potential for contaminated groundwater and soils, methane creation, and transportation costs (most recycling facilities are much closer than the landfilling sites).

Past state legislators permitted so much landfill capacity that the beautiful state of Michigan has become a cheap dumping ground for dozens of states and Canada, because Michigan now has a huge over-supply of landfill space. Competition among huge landfills makes the cost for burying trash – the tipping fee – one of the lowest in the U.S.

Even though it makes no sense for Toronto to ship trash to Michigan, Michigan has artificially made it economical for Toronto to send their garbage to us. In FY 2008, Michigan residents sent 39,913,636 cubic yards of waste to Michigan landfills. Canada gave us another 10,722,164 cubic yards, and 6,484,096 came from other states for a grand total of 57,119,896 tons buried in the state of Michigan in just one year.

There are costs that Toronto and other states are not paying that will someday be paid for by Michigan residents.

Tons recycled

Recycling

Recycling is one way to reduce the landfill numbers we’ve already looked at. In Ann Arbor, curbside recycling is provided by Recycle Ann Arbor through a contract with the city. Currently, residents use two stackable totes – a green one for containers and a gray one for paper material.

Ann Arbor’s indicator for total recycled material is green (good) with a level arrow (steady). So what kind of numbers does that indicator reflect?

After a steady rise through the 1990s, the total tons of recycled material in Ann Arbor has leveled off or dropped a bit through the 2000s.

We have dropped a bit in the total amount of material recycled since a high in 2001, but overall our recycling rate has been steady for the past nine years.

To get that arrow for the indicator pointing up is one of the reasons we are looking at single-stream recycling to start in mid-2010 as a way to make recycling easier – toss everything in one cart – to boost our recycling rate and overall amount of waste we are diverting from landfills.

The city currently collects 357 pounds of recycleables per household (HH) per year. Single-stream recycling is expected to raise that amount by 100 pounds to 457 lbs/HH/year. Based on other communities, the addition of the RecycleBank rewards program is estimated to increase recycling to 752 lbs/HH/year – more than doubling the recycleables collected in Ann Arbor. These estimates also account for the expected drop in our total tons recycled because of the loss of the local daily newspaper in 2009.

Tons composted

Composting

Keeping organics that could be composted out of landfills is another way to reduce our landfilled waste numbers.

Ann Arbor’s environmental indicator is green (good) with an upward arrow (improving). What are the numbers that support Ann Arbor’s composting indicator?

Ann Arbor's total tons composted had an upward trend through the 1990s, leveled off, then dropped.

Like recycling, the amount of composted material rose steadily through the 1990s. But composting rates then leveled out, with a big drop in 2007. The numbers for 2008 show us heading back in the right direction. The recent drop is because of a city council ban on grass clippings. They made manually-emptied cans very heavy – but grass clippings are now accepted in the new automated compost carts.

Composting rates are variable and depend on weather – if the year is wet or dry, along with other climatic factors such as ice storm damage, that influences the amount of vegetation collected.

Also, the loss of all the city’s ash trees over the past decade due to the Emerald Ash Borer took a toll by eliminating an estimated 11% of the city’s entire urban forest. Beginning in July 2008, residents began using carts or paper yard waste bags for their compostables. In the fall of 2009, pre-consumer uncooked vegetative food wastes began being accepted in the compost carts’ seasonal pickups.

Percent Diverted

Total Solid Waste: Landfilled, Recycled, Composted

Looking at the individual components of the waste stream – what gets landfilled, recycled, or composted – is definitely useful. But it’s also important to look at the big picture.

When you take a look at the overall picture of waste that is landfilled, recycled, or composted, you get a composite that looks like this.

Total annual solid waste (landfilled, recycled, composted material) has been creeping upward.

It appears that the total amount of waste is down from the high in 2001 but our total waste has been creeping up since 2004.

The measure we look at for an indicator is the percentage of the total waste that is diverted – that is, either recycled or composted. This percentage of diversion is also known as the “recovery rate.”

Ann Arbor’s indicator for total amount of waste diverted is green (good) with a level arrow (stable).

Waste diversion is still fairly high at 41% (citywide, including both commercial and residential) and well above national and state averages. However, it is still lower than our previous high of 46% and well under our intermediate solid waste plan goal of 60%. When we look at just the residential waste stream, we are diverting 54% of the waste stream from landfills.

In 2000, a survey of comparable university communities was developed to benchmark Ann Arbor with peer communities.

       Boulder  Champgn  Madison  Minnpls  OrgnCty  Portlnd  AnnArbor
Pop.   110,700   64,280  200,800  358,785  107,000  505,000  112,000
HH      37,500   24,500   59,200  114,000   48,200  132,000   46,000
SW/day    3.00     3.00     2.53     2.46     3.79     2.75     2.70

PctDiv   36.40    28.20    46.30    29.40    32.20    50.30    39.60
PctRcy   30.40     5.90    19.10    16.60    25.00    27.40    21.60
PctCmp    6.00    22.30    27.20    12.70     7.20    22.90    18.00

ReCurb     513      155      501      384      479      661      727
ReTot      983      203      567      471      345      889      511
Yard       193      771      809      360      401      742      521

-

It’s About More than Garbage: Climate

Diversion of material from landfills helps with the management of our solid waste, but it also has a positive impact on reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emissions of GHGs is an environmental indicator that’s classified by the city as a part of a different environmental goal: stable climate. We’ll take a look at that goal later in this series.

But it’s worth taking a brief look at the relationship between solid waste management and greenhouse gas emissions.

The following is taken directly from USEPA, Methodology For Estimating Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Benefits November 2007:

The disposal of solid waste produces greenhouse gas emissions in a number of ways. First, the anaerobic decomposition of waste buried in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Second, the incineration of waste also produces carbon dioxide as a by-product. [Note: Ann Arbor does not currently burn any of its waste.] Additionally, in transporting waste for disposal, greenhouse gases are emitted due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Finally, fossil fuels are also required for extracting and processing the raw materials necessary to replace those materials that are being disposed with new products.

The national MSW recycling rate in 2006 was 32.5% (or 82 million tons). Using a WAste Reduction Model (WARM), the EPA has estimated the impact of that 82 million tons of recycling on total GHG emissions: It’s the equivalent of 1,288 trillion BTU – enough to power 6.8 million American households.

In 2003, a team of master’s students from the University of Michigan developed a climate action plan for the city. Using the EPA WARM model, they estimated the emissions avoided in Ann Arbor for the 10-year period from 1991-2001. Note: We have not updated these numbers (yet) using the latest recycling and composting numbers. Here, MTCO2e is the metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent:

Year      Recycling     Composting   Total MTCO2e
1991      20,983.02        977.45      21,960.47
1992      22,075.72      1,356.75      23,432.47
1993      25,630.61      1,530.75      27,161.36
1994      28,098.70      1,737.45      29,836.15
1995      28,254.14      1,973.70      30,227.84
1996      35,740.40      2,184.40      37,924.80
1997      35,997.50      2,865.00      38,862.50
1998      33,570.73      2,302.80      35,873.53
1999      35,247.17      2,262.00      37,509.17
2000      37,713.29      2,397.40      40,110.69
2001      42,086.72      2,536.20      44,622.92

TOTAL    345,398.00     22,123.90     367,521.90

-

Following the EPA’s conversion, the 20,000-45,000 range of MTCO2e would translate to a range of savings equal to the energy needed to power 750-1,500 households.

Paths to Contribution

One of the goals of this series is to present some information about who’s already working on improving the city’s indicator scores, and to suggest some specific ways that members of the community can contribute to achieving the city’s environmental goals.

All solid waste, recycling, and composting efforts by the city of Ann Arbor are summarized on the city’s website: “Solid Waste and Recycling”

What can you do on a personal level? First, if you have less stuff, there is less to manage.

Second, reuse the stuff you have. The Reuse Center on South Industrial Avenue is one of several local groups that take items that are still in good shape. You get the tax deduction for your donation, and someone else gets an item they need (or just want more than you do) at a pretty good price. It also doesn’t end up in a landfill.

Personally, I have a new mantle over our fireplace that came from the reuse center, a series of low voltage halogen lights along our entry way, and a Rube Goldberg canoe carrier made from two recycled golf bag carriers. Other local reuse locations are listed online on the city’s website: “Reuse Options”

Third, what you can’t reuse, recycle. That should get easier soon. In mid-2010 the city’s residential and commercial weekly recycling collection program will be expanding to a single-stream program. As part of the upgrade of the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), Ann Arbor will add and recycle clean plastic bottles and household rigid containers marked #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, and #7. Bulky plastic HDPE #2 items such as buckets, crates, trays, outdoor furniture, and many toys will be accepted.

Three types of plastics that will not be included in the expanded program include items marked with a: #3 (PVC for polyvinyl chloride), polystyrene foam (aka Styrofoam™), and plastic bags or film of any sort.

The city will continue to accept and recycle: glass bottles and food containers; tin/steel cans; aluminum cans, foil, and trays; metal scrap (such as pots and pans up to 1 square foot and 20 pounds/piece); milk cartons and juice boxes; newspapers; magazines and catalogs; corrugated cardboard (including pizza boxes free of food); paper bags; junk mail; office paper; boxboard (e.g., flattened cereal boxes); telephone books; and gift wrapping paper. Clean freezer food boxes will also be recyclable.

What about that old appliance you’d like to get rid of? Effective July 1, 2008, until further notice, the following electronic items are accepted at the Drop Off Station at Platt and Ellsworth at no additional charge beyond the per-vehicle charge of $3/visit: VCRs, stereos, microwave ovens, desktop computers, laptop computers, printers, fax machines, and copiers.

Other interesting efforts:

• Video on Recycling in Ann Arbor
• Ann Arbor Street Art Fair – Zero Waste Events
• Recycling at the University of Michigan

The purpose of sharing this indicator through The Chronicle is to share the State of Our Environment Report with the community and hear what you think. As the city’s environmental coordinator, I will be following any comments readers leave here.

Readers who’d prefer to send an email can use MNaud [at] a2gov.org. An easy chance for an in-person chat would be when the city’s environmental commission meets – the fourth Thursday of each month at 7 p.m. This month’s meeting is today, Jan. 28. Although meetings are typically held in the city council chambers at city hall, the January meeting will be a working session in the 6th floor workroom. City hall is located at 100 N. Fifth Ave.

A sign opposing property rezoning in Superior Township. (Photos by the writer.)

It’s evident in words like those on a banner in the township hall touting a commitment to preservation. It’s evident in actions like voter approval of a special tax to defend the community’s growth-management plan.

But for all the agreement, there’s discord over the means to that end.

Rather than fighting a lawsuit they say they expected to win, township officials have struck a deal with a development group that sued after a zoning change was denied.

Disappointed residents say the settlement bails out the developers, and is a retreat from a strategy of enacting and defending a strong master plan and zoning. Township officials say buying land and development rights – as the $400,000 settlement deal will do – is the only sure way to end the battle for good.

The real goal isn’t a legal victory, but the conservation of the community’s rural character, says township supervisor Bill McFarlane. “I feel we would have won the lawsuit this time, but land values will eventually go up again and we could be fighting this again in a year, or two years or five years.”

The Background

The property at issue is a 77-acre parcel on the northwest corner of Prospect and Geddes roads.

It’s a corridor that Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program and the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy have all invested in, buying land or the development rights to hundreds of acres of property. Zoned agricultural, the land is also subject to the township’s prohibition on extending water and sewer service north of Geddes Road.

Developers sought a zoning change and proposed a privately operated sewage-treatment system to serve a planned 236-home subdivision. After the zoning change was denied in 2007, the limited-liability companies holding the land filed suit.

Citizen activists, township officials and the lawyer representing the township in the lawsuit all say the defense was solid.

“We had a watertight defense and were going to win in court,” says Jan BenDor, who worked to organize opposition to the settlement.

McFarlane and Fred Lucas, the attorney handling the township’s defense, say they, too, were confident.

Nevertheless, township officials opted for a settlement. Last week, they signed off on a multi-part deal that will end the 2008 lawsuit.

The Deal – and Reaction

Not final until authorized by the Circuit Court, the settlement will require the township to pay $100,000 to purchase a conservation easement on 40 of the 77 acres. In addition, Superior Township will pay $300,000 to acquire an 8.1-acre chunk of the land at the corner of Prospect and Geddes roads. Township officials will set that parcel aside for the future construction of a new fire house. [.pdf file of map from consent agreement]

The deal further OKs new business activities on the remaining 28.5 acres.

That provision, which is expected to result in the construction of a feed store and warehouse along Prospect Road, is among the more controversial components of the settlement. Reaction was strong, and at a Jan. 19 public hearing on the settlement, as many as 100 people piled into the township hall to voice their views on both sides of the issue.

Matt Schuster was among the residents unhappy with the plan. Neither the fire station nor the feed store are appropriate under the zoning or master plan that community members have worked hard to create, he told township officials.

“This doesn’t support our long-term goals,” he said, earning a chorus of “amens” from like-minded neighbors.

Fewer than 30 of the citizens who attended the hearing spoke. Those with objections or concerns slightly outnumbered those who backed the agreement set forth in a consent judgment. [.pdf file of agreement]

Some, like Schuster, objected to provisions of the settlement. Others focused on the the broader decision to settle.

Voters, who in 2006 approved a special tax to defend the township’s growth-management plan, expected to see the case litigated to a successful judgment, said Jan BenDor in an interview. Instead, she said, their dollars are “bailing out” developers.

BenDor – and others who spoke at the hearing – argue that a settlement invites future litigation.

Fred Lucas of Lucas and Baker in Onsted – who’s handling the case for the township – disagrees. “We’ve fought other suits and won, but that hasn’t deterred litigation,” he said.

Supporters of the settlement included those who favor setting aside land for a fire station. (The $300,000 for that purchase will come from a fire department building fund.)

Other supporters voiced enthusiasm for the provisions that will allow a feed and agriculture supply store. But homeowners close to the property targeted for the business had a different view.

Dennis Donahue, standing at right, spoke at the Jan. 19 public hearing about a proposed lawsuit settlement between Superior Township and developers.

Neighbors to the west voiced concerns about potential water contamination from stored fertilizer products at a feed store. Dennis Donahue, whose home would be nearest to the planned business, objected to the prospect of semi-trailer trucks and commercial activity that’s prohibited under the existing agricultural zoning.

“If having a feed store is appropriate, then our zoning should be changed to allow it,” Donahue said at the hearing, rebutting arguments that such an operation supports the community’s interest in preserving agricultural land use.

The zoning for the feed store parcel will not technically change. But, once-approved, the terms of the consent agreement will trump zoning and planning rules. That amounts to “spot zoning,” said critics, or “zoning by contract.”

The terms of the consent agreement are enforced by the court. They can only be altered if the  parties bound by the settlement – at this point, the township and Hummana LLC and NYR2 LLC – agree.

Hummana and the second limited-liability company are entities created by the real-estate interests that purchased the acreage for a proposed residential development. The Farmington Hills-based Friedman Real Estate Group is among the Hummana partners.

Commercial Activity

The feed store parcel includes an existing equestrian facility. Originally built by the Donahue family, it will operate as a public stable. The terms of the consent agreement allow additional structures, but limit uses and the total square footage on the parcel.

Hummana expects to sell that piece of property to Michael Schofield, who’s run an agricultural supply store on Whitmore Lake Road.

Lucas said that it’s true there’ll be a change – the township doesn’t allow commercial activity there now. However, the existing zoning would permit construction of one residence on every two acres. That’s potentially far more development, he said, as well as development that would affect the rural character of the Geddes-Prospect area.

Township residents critical of the settlement say there’s little chance of residential development anyway. The clay soil in the area is unsuitable for septic fields, said BenDor.

McFarlane’s more cautious: “Eventually someone will want to build there again. The only way to make sure the land isn’t developed is to own it or tie it up with an easement.” A conservation easement is an agreement that puts restrictions on property, such as preventing dense housing developments.

Sagging property values, which allow the township to spend less to acquire or protect land, present the opportunity to prevent development, he said. “And we have to do what’s in the best interest of the entire township.”

McFarlane also countered assertions about the intended use of revenue from the special tax passed in 2006. It was meant to be used for a variety of activities that would support the master plan, he told The Chronicle. “That includes purchasing land or easements. It’s not just a legal defense fund.”

The $100,000 to buy the conservation easement will come from that fund.

Land Preservation

Township officials had hoped to have partners in acquiring conservation easements.

A sign marking the LeFurge Woods Nature Preserve in Superior Township.

Clerk David Phillips said they approached officials at the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program and the Ann Arbor greenbelt program. All three have holdings nearby, including the conservancy’s LeFurge Woods Nature Preserve on the northeast corner of Geddes and Prospect. [Map of Superior Township's preserved land.]

With help from one or more of the land-conservation programs, it should have been possible to draft a settlement that didn’t include a commercial component, said Phillips. “We could have conserved more land.”

But the relatively short timeline and the nature of the property worked against it, and all three groups declined to participate.

Each program has its own criteria and focus. For example, the county program buys largely natural areas, Tom Freeman, who leads the program, told The Chronicle. Although some parcels have included a portion of agricultural land, the bulk of the properties are natural, he said.

For its part, the conservancy wasn’t able to respond as quickly as needed, said executive director Jill Lewis. The group was asked to participate in a predefined way that wasn’t a good fit, she said. Lewis declined to elaborate and the conservancy opted not to take a public position on the consent agreement.

“We’re not involved and we don’t think it’s a good idea to take a position other than we are in favor of land protection in the township and the 7-county southeast Michigan region,” Lewis said.

When the township failed to come up with additional funding to create a larger conservation easement – and boost the payout to Hummana – the company opted to slice off and sell the 28.5 acres with the stable, Phillips said.

McFarlane still holds out hope that a conservancy group may accept the conservation easement that is being secured. “It would tie the land up more and reduce the chance that a future township board would undo this,” he said.

But he’s satisfied that township officials have made the right decision for the long term, even though there’s some discontent today. “You can’t make everyone happy. I think about 25% are unhappy about this.”

“It’s a balance,” said McFarlane, “between what we’re getting and what we’re giving up.”

As for giving up on what some considered a bulletproof land-use plan: “I can sue you for anything,” Lucas said at last week’s hearing.

The plaintiff’s damage claim is “iffy at best,” Lucas said. “But you can never guarantee a result and if you succeed, nothing prevents another owner or developer from seeking rezoning again.”

About the writer: Judy McGovern lives in Ann Arbor. She has worked as a journalist here, in Ohio, New York and several other states.