Jennifer S. Hall, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission, presided over her last regular meeting on May 11. Her term ends on June 30; GAC's June meeting will be a joint session with the city's park advisory commission.

Instead of holding their regular meetings in June, the greenbelt and park advisory commissions have scheduled a joint working session to discuss common goals and priorities – they last met jointly in April 2010.

Term limits were raised in another context during Wednesday’s meeting, when commissioners were asked to recommend that city council restate current GAC membership terms. Mary Fales of the city attorney’s office has been working on the revisions, after inconsistencies were discovered for current appointments. For example, a term for Ecology Center director Mike Garfield ended on June 30, 2009. Though he continued to serve, he was not officially reappointed to another three-year term until Sept. 21, 2010. Under the resolution recommended by GAC, all terms would end on June 30, over staggered years.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners got an update about Michigan budget-related legislation that would cut tax credits for farmers. They were also briefed by staff about changes to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program – the city has received millions of dollars worth of FRPP grants over the years to offset the cost of development rights purchased in the greenbelt.

Ginny Trocchio, support staff for the greenbelt program, told commissioners that June 16 is the date for a greenbelt celebration, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, which was added to the greenbelt in 2010. The event will be open to the public, and will include a presentation to highlight the program’s accomplishments.

Dan Ezekiel, GAC’s vice chair, reported that the subcommittee he’s leading to look at possible changes in the greenbelt boundary will be making a proposal at the commission’s July 13 meeting.

And in its final action of the meeting, commissioners emerged from a closed session and voted to recommend that Ann Arbor city council make a $127,200 offer for the purchase of development rights on a property within the greenbelt. Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of these greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number.

Farmland Tax Credits

At the commission’s March 9, 2011 meeting, Tom Bloomer – a greenbelt commissioner and farmer who owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township – gave an update on proposed state legislation that would impact farmers. GAC chair Jennifer S. Hall had asked him to provide more details at their next meeting. Because the April meeting was canceled, Bloomer’s first chance to brief the commission again came on Wednesday.

The state’s Farmland Preservation Program – under Public Act 116, the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act – provides tax credits to farmers. As part of his overhaul of the state’s tax structure, Gov. Rick Snyder has proposed eliminating or reducing most tax credits. The changes would not only affect high-profile tax credits for the film industry, but also would cut tax credits in several other sectors, including brownfield redevelopment, historic preservation, and farmland.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Bloomer distributed a list of talking points regarding the farmland tax credits, and urged people to contact their state legislators about the issue. His points included:

• Michigan farmland assessments are higher than any other Midwestern state.
• Most Midwestern states assess farmland based upon current land use. Michigan assesses upon potential market value.
• Without PA 116 tax refunds, participating Michigan farmers would not be competitive in many areas of the state. PA 116 levels the playing field while holding local units of government harmless.
• With approximately $1 billion in annual tax abatements for all industry in Michigan, $35.9 million was returned to Michigan landowners in 2009 under the PA 116 program.
• Under PA 116, agricultural landowners pay normal property taxes, and then are reimbursed by the state for any property tax liability over 3.5% of household income. Therefore PA 116 is a reasonable benefit for working farms while not rewarding speculative landholders who may have much larger personal incomes.
• Food production is Michigan’s second largest industry, with $81 billion generated from the farm supplier through the food retailer, employing approximately 1 million persons. Production agriculture, with land as the primary resource, is the linchpin of the state’s entire food economy.

Commissioner Mike Garfield asked about the status of the legislation that includes changes to PA 116. Bloomer didn’t know. [The state Senate passed a tax reform package the following day that included cuts to farmland tax credits. It will return to the House to be reconciled for a final vote there – the Republican-led House has already approved a version of the legislation – before going to Snyder for his signature. Clarification: The legislation repeals PA 116 credits only as part of a broader repeal of the Michigan Business Tax. For individual filers, PA 116 credits would remain unchanged. Also, taxpayers could choose to continue filing the MBT – in that case, they would also continue to receive the PA 1116 credits.]

Commissioner Gil Omenn said he knew people were getting primed to testify about the tax changes at upcoming legislative hearings, but he wasn’t sure if the agricultural industry was represented. “We should hurry if we’re trying to make an impact,” he said.

Since the changes wouldn’t take effect until next year, Bloomer suggested that one strategy could be for farmers to sign up this year for the credits – contracts are for a minimum of seven years, but it’s possible to get the credits for up to 99 years, he noted. He said those would remain in place even if the credits are eliminated in future years. Contracts for the tax credits stay with the property even if ownership changes hands, he said – the only thing that would void the credits is if the land is used for something other than farming.

Commissioner Peter Allen said that if farmers feel their taxes are too high, they can always appeal that assessment. Yes, Bloomer replied, but the reality is it’s rare to win an appeal.

Allen noted that many of the tax credits slated for elimination – including historic preservation and brownfield credits – would really hit the real estate industry hard. [Allen is a local developer.] Now, some legislators are trying to find ways to soften that impact, he said. But the idea is to get everyone back to the same base, he noted – and taking away subsidies is part of that agenda for Snyder.

Bloomer reiterated one of the points in his handout – that neighboring states assess farmland based upon current land use, not potential market value. That puts Michigan farmers at a disadvantage, he said, and that’s what PA 116 was designed to address. It penalizes people who hold land for speculative purposes, he said, making it expensive for them to stockpile land for development. Allen noted that the pendulum is swinging on that – given the economy, there’s much less interest from developers.

GAC Membership Term Limits

Mary Fales from the city attorney’s office was on hand to update the commission about member terms. She had drafted a resolution to restate GAC’s membership terms.

GAC chair Jennifer S. Hall introduced the issue by noting that at their Nov. 10, 2010 meeting, she had mentioned that her term and the term for Gil Omenn would be ending as of June 30, 2011 – she had encouraged anyone who was interested to contact their city council representative. [For most city boards and commissions, the mayor is responsible for nominating members, and those nominations are voted on by the city council. However, GAC and the environmental commission differ in this respect – for those bodies, nominations are made by city councilmembers.]

From left: Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioners Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, and Gil Omenn. Partially visible is Ginny Trocchio, greenbelt program manager, who appears to be describing how a bunny might hop through the forest. Ezekiel is portioning out candy he brought to share, purchased from the newly opened Cherry Republic store on Main Street.

At the time, in response to a query from The Chronicle, she had looked at information about terms on the commission and found some inconsistencies, and had asked the city attorney’s office to sort it out.

Fales said she conducted an historical audit, reviewing all GAC resolutions since its inception. She provided a handout that showed the history of GAC membership, beginning with inital appointments in 2004. [.pdf file of GAC membership]

There had been confusion because some commissioners had resigned in the middle of their terms. In other cases, there had been a delay between the time a term ended, and the point when city council reappointed that commissioner. The research Fales conducted also found that two council resolutions of appointment – in 2008 and 2009 – included incorrect term years.

The resolution that GAC was asked to consider on Wednesday restated the current terms, Fales said, aligning the start dates to all fall on July 1, over staggered years. The restated terms, all for three years, are as follows:

• Jennifer Santi Hall (public at large): July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2011
• Gil Omenn (public at large): July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2011
• Catherine Riseng (biologist): July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012
• Mike Garfield (environmental organization): July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012
• Peter Allen (real estate): July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012
• Tom Bloomer (agricultural landowner): July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2013
• Laura Rubin (environmental organization): July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2013
• Dan Ezekiel (public at large): July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2013

Fales noted that the most interesting gap was Garfield’s. He was appointed to a two-year term from 2004-2006, then a three-year term from 2006-2009. That term ended on June 30, 2009, but the city council didn’t reappoint him until Sept. 21, 2010. Catherine Riseng was reappointed on that same date – she was appointed to fill a partial term following the resignation of Sylvia Taylor.

The ordinance governing GAC appointments states that commissioners can serve for 60 days after their term expires. Garfield indicated that this meant his votes during the gap could be invalidated. Fales replied that the resolution restating GAC terms would fix that – it sets Garfield’s appointment as starting on July 1, 2009.

Fales said she expected Carsten Hohnke – the city councilmember who serves on GAC, but who was absent from Wednesday’s meeting – would sponsor the appointment resolution at council, but she hadn’t talked to him about it yet.

Omenn asked about the city council slot on GAC – it wasn’t included in the resolution. Fales reported that the council selects a councilmember to serve on GAC each year, and that’s handled separately.

Commissioners are allowed to serve two consecutive, three-year terms. If they are appointed mid-term to fill a vacancy after another commissioner resigns, they can still be appointed to two full terms after that, Fales said.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to recommend that city council adopt the restated GAC membership terms.

Update on Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which is under contract with the city to manage the greenbelt program, gave a presentation to commissioners on changes made in the 2008 farm bill to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The primary changes relate to a new certification process, and to land eligibility and scoring criteria used for grant funding. The greenbelt program has received several million dollars worth of FRPP grants, and has additional applications pending.

Entities can now become certified by the state conservationist, who makes recommendations for certification to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service chief for final approval. Becoming certified has no impact on an entity’s ability to get FRPP funding, Trocchio said, but it does streamline the review process and gives more responsibility to the certified entity for program management.

To become certified, an entity must hold at least 25 conservation easements, including five FRPP easements obtained over the past five years. Easements that are held by another partner – even if the greenbelt program has contributed funding – don’t count, she said. [In general, conservation easements are deed restrictions limiting the amount of development that can be done on the site, in exchange for certain tax benefits.]

The city holds 13 conservation easements now, she said, and another three deals are expected to close by year’s end. Ten of those have used FRPP funds.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, preparing to give a presentation to the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

Another criteria is closing efficiency – referring to the amount of time it takes to complete a transaction. Entities must have an average closing efficiency of 18 months or less for FRPP projects, over the past 5 years. The city has a 10-month average for closing, Trocchio said.

Ann Arbor is one of the entities in Michigan that’s closest to meeting certification requirements, she said, noting that it’s possible to ask for waivers for some of the requirements.

Commissioner Peter Allen asked for her opinion about whether the city should seek a waiver and apply for certification. Trocchio said she had some concerns. For one, no one has yet gone through the certification process, and details about how that might occur are still being worked out. She said she’d want to get more information before taking action. What’s more, these changes were in the 2008 farm bill, even though it’s just now being rolled out. Negotiations are about to begin for the 2012 farm bill, she noted, which could bring additional changes.

She said another possibility is to look at getting Land Trust Alliance accreditation for the greenbelt program.

Allen asked what would happen if federal tax subsidies are turned inside out, and the FRPP program is eliminated.

Peg Kohring, a manager with The Conservation Fund, said she’d recently talked with an aide for U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who chairs the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The aide had reported that since production is down worldwide, there will likely be fewer subsidies, and those that remain in place will focus on driving production. Farmland preservation would be well-positioned for that scenario, Kohring said.

Kohring also noted that if the city pursues Land Trust Alliance accreditation, there are a number of policies that they’d need to put in place, beyond the basic policies they’ve already adopted. GAC might think about directing Trocchio to look into what’s needed in order to get accreditation, she said.

Trocchio then discussed changes to the FRPP land eligibility and scoring criteria. Under the new criteria, up to 66% of land eligible for FRPP funds may be forest land, she said. Previously, at least 50% of land had to be in agriculture production. The scoring criteria still favors larger parcels, she noted – parcels under 30 acres receive no points in the scoring.

Additional criteria have been added for the ratio of the land being considered for an FRPP grant to the county’s average farm size. In Washtenaw County, the average farm size is 128 acres. If the ratio is less than one, zero points are awarded.

Ezekiel noted that many large farms outside of the greenbelt’s boundaries to the west cause the average farm size to be higher. Farms inside the greenbelt tend to be smaller, and that puts them at a disadvantage with this scoring criteria, he said. Kohring observed that they should consider this fact when looking at potentially changing the greenbelt boundaries. Unless some of those larger farms get included within the greenbelt boundaries, the program won’t be as competitive for FRPP grants, she said.

Staff, Committee Reports: Joint Meeting, Greenbelt Boundary

Ginny Trocchio reported that a joint working session of the greenbelt and park advisory commissions will be held on Tuesday, June 7. That means GAC will not hold its regular meeting on June 8, she said. [The two commissions last held a joint session in April 2010.]

Trocchio also reported that Thursday, June 16 is the date for a greenbelt celebration, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, which was added to the greenbelt program in 2010. It will be open to the public, she said, and will include a presentation to highlight the program’s accomplishments. Trocchio said she expects the program will close on several deals over the next few months that will push the amount of protected land over the 3,000-acre mark.

At GAC’s next regular meeting on July 13, Trocchio said the agenda will include a presentation on Scio Township’s land preservation efforts. The township recently went through some strategic planning, working with consultant Barry Lonik, and they’ll come to share their priorities with GAC, she said.

Dan Ezekiel, GAC’s vice chair, reported that the subcommittee he’s leading to look at possible changes in the greenbelt boundary will be making a proposal at the July meeting. Any changes to the boundaries would also require approval by the city council.

Several commissioners expressed their thanks to Jennifer S. Hall and Gil Omenn. Mike Garfield praised their remarkable service, noting that they’d both been involved in the original campaign to launch the greenbelt program. The program has been built up over the years, he said, “and you’ve both contributed enormously to this.”

Peter Allen suggested they throw a party in honor of Hall and Omenn – and jokingly asked if Omenn could host it at his house.

Hall said that leaving the commission will mark the end of her current span of service with the city – she no longer serves on any other city board or commission. She noted that her first appointment was to the planning commission in 2003, and that she was glad her final meeting was back at city hall. “It just feels right to end here.” [GAC and other city groups have been meeting for the past year or so at the county administration building, during renovations to city hall. The May meeting was the first time GAC had returned to city hall.]

Greenbelt Acquisition Recommended

The commission entered closed session to discuss land acquisitions. After emerging, they unanimously passed a resolution recommending that Ann Arbor city council make a $127,200 offer for the purchase of development rights for a property within the greenbelt boundaries.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of these greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number. In this case, the parcel number is 2011-05.

Dan Ezekiel was the only commissioner to comment on the offer, calling it a wonderful property. He said it’s an example of the synergies they’re starting to see when development rights acquired on one property can provide the proceeds to start the process for another one – in this case, expanding a block of excellent farmland, he said.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Jennifer S. Hall, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin, Gil Omenn

Absent: Carsten Hohnke

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, July 13 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. The commission will hold a joint working session with the park advisory commission on Tuesday, June 8. [confirm date]

The city’s cost would be paid out of the greenbelt millage funds. The federal match would be up to 50% of the appraised fair market value of the development rights, up to a maximum of $5,000 per acre. The greenbelt advisory commission recommended at its Dec. 8, 2010 meeting that the city make the applications to the FRLPP.

This brief was filed from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, where the council is meeting due to renovations in the city hall building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Jennifer Santi Hall was elected chair of the city's greenbelt advisory commission at their July meeting, replacing Laura Rubin in that role. (Photos by the writer.)

The discussion prompted one commissioner, Dan Ezekiel, to underscore that they weren’t trying to favor small farms – they were simply trying to offset the advantages that the program has previously afforded to larger farms.

A review of revisions to the greenbelt program’s scoring criteria included a robust discussion about the meaning of “local food economy.” One of the proposed revisions would award points to farms that produce local food and contribute to the local food economy.

Commissioner Tom Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer, argued that all farms in Washtenaw County contribute to the local food economy, either directly or indirectly. Jennifer Santi Hall, who had proposed the change, agreed to withdraw the item from the scoring criteria so that they could refine the language. But she noted that it was important to find some way of including criteria for local food production, to align the scoring of applications with the greenbelt program’s strategic plan, which includes a section on the local food economy.

Later in the meeting, after nearly an hour in closed session to discuss land acquisition, the commission recommended allocating nearly $3 million in five separate deals, the majority of them for the purchase of development rights of local farms. Those recommendations will be forwarded to city council for final approval.

Support for Small Farms

Last month, at their June 9, 2010 meeting, the commission discussed possible changes to modify language in conservation easements for the city’s greenbelt program, as a way to accommodate small farms. It was one of several approaches first considered by a subcommittee on small farms that includes GAC commissioners Tom Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer; Dan Ezekiel, an Ann Arbor teacher and environmentalist; and Mike Garfield, director of the Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor nonprofit.

It’s been difficult for farmers who own land that’s not eligible for matching federal funds – because of the farm’s small size – to participate in the greenbelt program. This is partly the case because typical conservation easements for the program stipulate that only 2% of land can be covered by an impervious surface, such as a house or roads. This isn’t an issue for large farms of 40 acres or more, but it’s different for small farmers with less acreage that want to build hoop houses, which might easily result in covering more than 2% of the land.

Based on feedback from the June discussion, GAC considered the following resolution at its July 14 meeting:

Motion to support revising the conservation easement language on an as‐needed basis in the following ways for small farms and local producers to support season extension production:

1. Allow up to 20% of the conservation easement parcel for development of non‐permanent agricultural structures, such as hoop houses, in order to support season extension, so long as it is consistent with the intended purpose of the conservation easement, in order to increase the potential agriculture production on easement parcel.

2. Continue to limit the amount of impervious surface development at 2% of the easement parcel for permanent buildings.

Before the vote, Ezekiel clarified that GAC is an advisory commission to city council, which will also have to approve this change. The purpose of the greenbelt program is to preserve land, he said – farmland, and in particular small farms, is just one type of land that can be part of the program. The proposed changes came about because the existing easement language – as well as federal funding under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP – is tilted in favor of conventional kinds of agriculture, he noted: Larger holdings and row-crop farming.

Ezekiel wanted to clarify that GAC wasn’t trying to subsidize small farms or CSAs (community-supported agriculture). They were just attempting to make the program accessible to these types of farms, he said, so that owners of small farms could be considered for the program.

Peter Allen wondered how many farms were using hoop houses. Are they rare, or are they being used more commonly to extend the growing season? The question was fielded by Bloomer, who said they’ve been a major factor in vegetable production for a long time in this northern climate, and that farmers in Washtenaw County have been expanding their vegetable acreage. “For truly small farmers, that’s a necessity,” he said.

Jennifer Santi Hall said the change would give the program access to different types of farms on an as-needed basis. She pointed out that it wasn’t requiring the commission to approve a certain size farm for the greenbelt – it would just enable them to consider applications for small farms.

Outcome: The resolution revising the conservation easement language passed unanimously.

Changes to Scoring Criteria

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who serves as staff for the greenbelt program under a contract with the city, presented some proposed changes to the conservation easement scoring criteria. She told commissioners that it was a follow-up to work they’d done a couple of months ago, looking at scoring criteria used by other easement programs nationwide.

The two major types of greenbelt acquisitions – agricultural land and open space – each have three categories of scoring: 1) characteristics of the land, 2) context and 3) other acquisition considerations. [.pdf file of scoring criteria, with proposed revisions indicated] When an application comes in for review, the parcel is awarded points based on this scoring criteria. Those scores are then used to evaluate whether the parcel is appropriate for the greenbelt program.

For scoring agricultural land, “local food” was added to the list of land characteristics for which points could be awarded. (Other items in that category include parcel size, the percentage of the property with wetlands or that’s in the floodplain, and the number of natural features on the land, among other things.)

The proposal called for awarding 15 points if the farm had locally produced food and contributed to the local food economy, and zero points if it did not. Trocchio said the addition of this item emerged from the commission’s discussions on small farms, and the fact that the current scoring criteria is geared toward larger farms and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) requirements. Awarding points for locally produced food would help level the field for smaller farms, she said. And if a larger farm also produces local food, it would score even higher, she noted.

Tom Bloomer objected to the wording of this addition. If the farm is located here, by definition it’s producing local food, he said. If the intent is to award points for food that’s consumed locally, then he didn’t believe that was a valid attribute. It implies that the program will enforce local marketing on landowners in the future, he said, and the program would be making an assumption about local food production that may not hold in 50 to 100 years. He also said he wasn’t sure what “contributing to the local food economy” means. It either needs a lot more definition, he said, or they should skip it.

Jennifer Santi Hall said she’d been the one who had suggested adding it to the scoring criteria, and that she’d welcome suggestions for change. Her intent was that the scoring criteria be consistent with their strategic plan. When they last updated the plan, they had added a section about the local food economy, she noted, and one of the action items had called for revising their scoring criteria to reflect that change.

The relevant section from the greenbelt program’s strategic plan, updated in March 2009:

Local Food or Other Crop Production

This year, the Greenbelt Advisory Commission has identified locally produced foods, agritourism, and other agricultural specialty products sold directly to local markets as an emerging issue. Our local markets, restaurants, non-profits, and most recently, the Homegrown Festival have all focused on the environmental, health, economic and community benefits of buying and selling local foods and other agricultural specialty products. In addition, we feel that a visible connection to our Greenbelt through the foods and other products that we buy and eat provides a tangible reminder of our preservation efforts. Local foods and other crops can find their way in to our Ann Arbor economy in a number of diverse ways: the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, local food stores, direct restaurant purchases from farms, U-pick farms, and even at larger chain groceries through regional food distributors.

Recognizing that the Greenbelt’s mission and direction is solely the protection of land, the Greenbelt program will make a priority to protect those farms that are producing foods for local markets. Even without this priority in our previous strategic plans, the Greenbelt program has actually preserved several farms that provide local food or other crops to the Ann Arbor area.

To date, the Greenbelt has focused on large parcels of active agriculture, however, many farms that are likely to produce vegetables or specialty crops for sale to our local markets or restaurants are likely to be less than 40 acres. Furthermore, these parcels are likely not going to qualify for Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program grant dollars. As such, our existing scoring system precludes these types of farms from our consideration. The Greenbelt Advisory Commission will amend our scoring system to award points to those applications that are supporting local food production or direct marketing production.

Goal

1. Amend scoring criteria to provide points for local food production.

2. The Greenbelt will evaluate and approve a partnership with one local food producer, as the opportunity arises.

[.pdf of complete greenbelt strategic plan]

The important thing, Hall said, is that when smaller farms are evaluated, there’s a way to offset the points that are awarded for large parcel size, which gives an advantage to larger farms.

Another reason, unrelated to a farm’s size, is that any farm producing food that’s sold locally is important to taxpayers who are funding the greenbelt program, Hall said. People who live in Ann Arbor and voted to pay taxes for the greenbelt did that, in part, because they felt that some of what they were preserving would come back to them, in terms of food they could consume. “That’s an important linkage to make,” she said.

She noted that the scoring criteria change over time, and the scores are based on a snapshot of time – there’s no guarantee that the land will remain the same. It’s just a way of evaluating applications at the time they’re presented, she said. The actual easement language is what secures the expectations for future land use, she added, and so far there’s no language about local food in those agreements.

Dan Ezekiel was elected vice chair of the greenbelt advisory commission at their July meeting.

Dan Ezekiel said the scoring revisions move them forward, and he thanked Trocchio for her work. He suggested changing the wording to “food for human consumption,” noting that a lot of corn and soybeans produced locally are used for livestock. That might be a difference worth making, he said.

Gil Omenn clarified that large farms could be awarded points for this too. That prompted Hall to say that she thinks the focus shouldn’t be on small farms. The focus should be on food that will be bought and consumed in Washtenaw County or Ann Arbor. Saying she liked Ezekiel’s suggestion, she noted that if a farm is growing food for livestock that’s also being raised in the county, they shouldn’t exclude that. “The important thing is that it’s happening in the local area,” she said, ” … and not going someplace else.”

Laura Rubin asked Trocchio how the staff would apply this to an actual application. Rubin noted that assessing wetlands on a property also isn’t very exact, so some of these criteria aren’t fine-tuned.

Trocchio replied that in some cases it would be clear. An example would be farms that are CSAs (community-supported agriculture), where local residents buy shares in the farm in exchange for produce. But in other cases, it would be more difficult to track, she said.

Bloomer said that so far, every single farm they’ve preserved through the greenbelt program has produced some percentage of its product for the local economy – assuming the definition of “local” includes all of Washtenaw County, not just Ann Arbor. Every farm produces something for the local food economy indirectly, he said, so every farm they’ll consider will get the 15 points. It might be producing grain or hay that’s eaten by livestock that’s eaten by people. Trying to track that would be difficult, he said. Bloomer said he was not opposed to the concept, but he wasn’t convinced that this criteria was a good approach, as it was currently worded.

Mike Garfield asked Bloomer for an example of how a local farm might produce something indirectly. Bloomer pointed to the Merkel farm – how would that be scored? They produce corn and soybeans, but a large portion of their crops are sold to the Dexter Mill, which uses it to make birdseed that’s sold locally. “Do people eat it? No, but birds eat it,” he said. “It’s a big business in Washtenaw County, and it adds a lot to our economy.”

Garfield said it’s an important and difficult issue. They seem to be trying to get a handle on two matters, he said. One is a broad concept, which he said Hall was trying to get at – the segment of farms that are developing agricultural products to be marketed locally. Over the last couple of years, the commission has been looking for ways to promote that, he said.

Then there’s a philosophical issue, he said. There’s a legitimate view that says they should be in the business of preserving land, and that land saved for farming should be the priority, regardless of where those crops get marketed. But what they were trying to do with the small farms initiative was to find ways to encourage a certain kind of business practice, he said.

If you get beyond that question, then the way they define the issue of “local food” is quite difficult – and the proposed wording doesn’t capture it, he said. Garfield said he thought they were trying to get at the notion of giving points for farm operations that sell a significant portion of their product in the local region – which he would argue should extend even beyond Washtenaw County. “I don’t have a good answer for this,” he concluded.

Hall said she was willing to take out the local food criterion, so that they could move forward on the other revisions. But she wanted to flag it for future discussion or have a small group work on the issue. It’s important to have this in the scoring criteria, she said. It would also serve to give the program more information about the types of farms they’re protecting, she added – that kind of qualitative information is important for taxpayers to know.

Hall also said that taking this approach wasn’t unfairly judging business practices. They already do that with other criteria, she said. There are points awarded for agricultural land that has preserved natural features, she noted – that gets at the kinds of farming practices that are being used.

Ezekiel described the discussion as fascinating and worthwhile, but he agreed that they hadn’t clarified their own thinking about the issue yet. He said he hoped that they were in consensus on the commission that their one and only priority is to preserve land, rather than to promote any one kind of business practice. In the small farms subcommittee, they’d discussed how the current scoring system is unintentionally skewed in favor of a certain type of business – large farms – and that they were trying to unskew it. He said he would not like to be identified as a commission that promotes a particular type of business practice.

Trocchio then reviewed revisions to the criteria for open space greenbelt acquisitions.

One question brought up by Gil Omenn during the discussion of open space criteria was why such a low point value was given for land that had proximity to Ann Arbor – two points are awarded to land located within a mile of Ann Arbor city limits.

This prompted Ezekial to give a bit of history about how the scoring criteria were initially determined, and how the point values were awarded. The criteria are outlined in the ordinance, he noted. The first group appointed to the greenbelt advisory commission – himself included – went through a process to determine how many points to award to each criterion, by determining a rank order of the items. The end result: Criteria that few people thought were important were given low point values, he said, adding that maybe it’s time to revise the numerical values.

Rubin asked whether they were obligated to include the ordinance’s criteria in the scoring. Trocchio said she’d check.

Hall said she felt that proximity to Ann Arbor had been important when the vote was taken. She’d be hesitant to delete it. Garfield expressed surprise that it only got two points. Omenn said he felt it deserved substantially more. That was the problem with rank ordering, he added. If the item came out last in the ranking, then it would get very few points – and not necessarily what it was worth.

Outcome: The revised scoring criteria – minus the item on local food – was approved unanimously.

Election of Officers

Laura Rubin noted that she has served as chair for two years. She said that Jennifer S. Hall had expressed interest in being chair and that Dan Ezekiel was interested in being vice chair. Rubin moved those two nominations, and there were no others. Rubin received a round of applause for her service.

Outcome: The commission unanimously elected Hall as chair and Ezekiel as vice chair.

Staff, Commissioner Updates

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund reported on several items. The greenbelt program had applied for funding in February 2010 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) for two properties, and had just received word that they have received grants on both: $418,470 for the 146-acre Whitney farm in Webster Township, and $260,910 for the 96-acre Honke property in Northfield Township.

[City council has already approved greenbelt purchase of development rights (PDR) for both properties. The city will spend a total of $707,122 on the Whitney farm and $457,357 for the Honke property.]

Trocchio also reported that at the end of June, the city submitted an application to the FRPP program through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative for $1.3 million. She expects to hear about that award in August or September.

Also, Ann Arbor Township recently closed on a deal for the Zeeb property, Trocchio said, adjacent to the Kapp farm. She noted that the greenbelt program had been a partner in the Kapp purchase as well as the Zeeb deal, and that the properties are forming a nice block of preserved land along Nixon Road and Pontiac Trial.

They were expecting about 30 people on their first annual greenbelt bus tour, Trocchio said, which would leave from the Ann Arbor farmers market and travel to several locations highlighting land preserved by the program, as well as partnerships and elements of the greenbelt’s strategic plan. [The tour took place on Saturday, July 17.]

Communications from Commissioners

Dan Ezekiel pointed out that Ann Arbor continues to garner the lion’s share of agricultural funding that comes to Michigan, thanks to taxpayers approving greenbelt money to match those federal funds, and thanks to the program’s superb staff.

Tom Bloomer gave a report from last month’s Breakfast on the Farm event, held at the Horning family dairy farm in western Washtenaw County. He described it as a tremendous success, with 2,400 people attending – many of them from Ann Arbor. “We didn’t run out of food, but it was close,” he said. There were demonstrations of food production – including cows being milked – to show people who might not be aware of how powerful and important agriculture is in this county, Bloomer said. He described the farm as one of the premier dairy farms in the Midwest and even the country – not huge, but sophisticated and well run.

Mike Garfield noted that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, at their next meeting on Aug. 4, plan to take up the millage renewal for the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP). He said that the greenbelt program has partnered with NAPP on many occasions. The county board recently amended the NAPP ordinance to make its funds more usable for agricultural easement transactions, he said, so there might be more opportunities for partnering with them in the future. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Natural Areas Tweaked for Ballot"] Garfield said they’d be keeping their fingers crossed on the fortunes of that program.

Jennifer S. Hall noted that the greenbelt commission had passed a resolution in support of the NAPP millage at its February 2010 meeting. She asked whether there would be a public hearing at the county board – if so, it might be imporatnt for the greenbelt commission to have a presence there, she said.

Motions Made Following Closed Session

The commission went into closed session to discuss land acquisition deals, and emerged about an hour later. They quickly passed five resolutions, without discussion, recommending greenbelt purchases to be forwarded to city council. Until the council approves these deals, the properties are identified only by their application number. If they are all approved, the acquisitions would amount to $2,947,905.

The motions recommended:

• making an offer of $1,247,000 for the purchase of development rights on a farm, if FRPP grant funds are awarded. If no FRPP funds are awarded but there’s at least a 20% match from other sources, it’s recommended that council move forward with the purchase.
• making an offer of $655,400 for the purchase of development rights on a farm, if FRPP grant funds are awarded. If no FRPP funds are awarded but there’s at least a 20% match from other sources, it’s recommended that council move forward with the purchase.
• making an offer of $725,000 for the purchase of development rights on a farm, if FRPP grant funds are awarded. If no FRPP funds are awarded but there’s at least a 20% match from other sources, it’s recommended that council move forward with the purchase.
• making an offer of $139,200 for a property, due to its adjacency to other greenbelt properties and the landowner’s willingness to donate 20% of the purchase price.
• contributing $181,305 toward the purchase of development rights of a Webster Township property, in partnership with Webster Township.

All of these items will be forwarded to city council for final approval.

Present: Laura Rubin, Jennifer Santi Hall, Peter Allen, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Tom Bloomer, Gil Omenn, Catherine Riseng

Absent: Carsten Hohnke

Next meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners boardroom, 220 N. Main, Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

A hoop house at Sunseed Farm, northwest of Ann Arbor. (Photo by Marianne Rzepka.)

To date, that hasn’t been an issue for most parcels in the program, which are fairly large – more than 40 acres. But as the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) considers ways to support small farms – in the 15-20 acre range – some challenges have emerged. A farm of that size with hoop houses, for example, might easily result in covering more than 2% of the land.

During the public portion of this month’s GAC meeting, commissioners discussed how to address this and other issues that might require modifying the language in conservation easements for the city’s greenbelt program. Also addressed were strategies to ensure that the land stays in agriculture for future generations.

No action was taken at the June 9 meeting, and comments from commissioners indicate there’s also no clear consensus yet for how to handle this relatively new greenbelt focus.

Conservation Easement: Tailored to Small Farms

A subcommittee on small farms has been working on these issues for about a year. That group includes GAC commissioners Tom Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer; Dan Ezekiel, an Ann Arbor teacher and environmentalist; and Mike Garfield, director of the Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor nonprofit.

At GAC’s November 2009 meeting, commissioners addressed the topic as well, and heard from Jennifer L. Hall, housing manager for the joint city/county office of community development, who outlined some ideas for how federal funding might provide resources to retain land for the farming community.

This month, Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who serves as staff for the greenbelt program under a contract with the city, presented more detailed options for possible conservation easements designed for small farms. In general, conservation easements limit the amount of development that can be done on the site, in exchange for certain tax benefits.

The farmland that’s been protected under Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program has consisted of fairly large parcels, in order to qualify for matching funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP. Easement agreements stipulate that no more than 2% of the land can be covered by impervious surfaces. Hoop houses – structures covered with plastic that allow farmers to extend their growing seasons by farming under the shelter – are considered impervious surfaces, Trocchio said. Because hoop houses are often used by smaller farms, the small farms subcommittee has been exploring ways that the easement agreements might be changed to accommodate them.

The subcommittee met with several owners of small local farms, Trocchio reported, including Shannon Brines of Brines Farm in Dexter and Tomm Becker of Sunseed Farm, northwest of Ann Arbor. Based on their feedback, one possible approach is to separate out permanent and non-permanent structures, and to allow non-permanent structures – such hoop houses – to cover up to 20% of the acreage. That would allow the easement to keep the permanent impervious percentage at 2%.

The general goal is to protect the soil, Trocchio said. With that in mind, non-permanent structures could be defined as “structures where the soil surface is not disturbed, including, but not limited to, hoop houses and farm structures without a floor or alterations to the soils such as gravel or concrete paths.”

Another possible concern centers on what happens if a small farm is sold to a new owner who isn’t interested in farming. Easements limit what can be done on the land, Trocchio noted, but don’t currently require that certain types of activities – like farming – must be done. So it would be possible for a new owner to simply use the land as an estate, rather than a small farm. The land would continue to be protected from development, but it wouldn’t serve the greenbelt program’s original goal – namely, supporting small farms.

Trocchio described some research done by the American Farmland Trust, which evaluated agricultural easement programs nationwide. The nonprofit reported that in some regions, farmland with conservation easements was being resold at rates that weren’t affordable for farmers. However, the land would often be kept in farming anyway, with the owner leasing it to farmers for specialty crops or for horse farms.

Trocchio also outlined the work of a Massachusetts nonprofit called Equity Trust, which has been exploring options to help land trusts keep farmland affordable for farmers. One possibility – a very new option for land trusts, Trocchio noted – would be to include language in the conservation easement stating that the land must be sold to a qualified farmer. The definition of a qualified farmer is someone who earns a certain stipulated percentage of their income from farming. If such a buyer couldn’t be found, then the entity holding the easement would have the right to purchase the land, and sell it to a farmer at a later date.

The advantages to this approach would be that there’s more control to keep the land in farming, Trocchio said. But there are several possible disadvantages too. For one, it would create an increased responsibility for the entity that holds the easement – for the greenbelt program, that entity is the city of Ann Arbor. If GAC was interested in pursuing this option, they’d need to check state statutes, to make sure it would be possible. Trocchio also pointed out that it might be too soon to know what the future of farming will be in this area, so it’s hard to say if this is even a concern.

There were several other options discussed by GAC’s small farm subcommittee that could be used to support small farms, Trocchio said. The commission could choose to give priority to greenbelt applications for small farms, prioritizing either by the length of time that the farmer has been on the land, or by the length of time that the land has been used for farming. Trocchio said another option is to give priority to small farms adjacent to larger farms that are already protected under the greenbelt program.

Trocchio said the subcommittee wasn’t making a recommendation at this point. She said the staff could start working with the city attorney’s office to check state statutes and craft easement language that would give the city the option to purchase farmland, but that wouldn’t make it mandatory. They could then bring back a proposal for the subcommittee and GAC to review. Trocchio also noted that there’s an amendment clause in the conservation easement agreements that would allow the city to change easements in the future.

Commissioner Questions & Comments: Keeping Land as Farmland

Jennifer S. Hall began by saying she wasn’t sure she understood the issue related to small farms being transferred to new owners in the future. Why would they be concerned more about small farms going out of production, compared to large farms?

Peg Kohring of The Conservation Fund said that small farms, because of the size of the parcel, would be more attractive to someone who just wants to have a home with a lot of land. And because of the conservation easement, which limits development, the land would be available at a relatively low price, she said. In general, smaller parcels sell more easily than larger parcels.

Hall asked whether that was a fact, or just an assumption. Kohring responded that if there’s a small parcel available at lower-than-market rates, because of the easement, she couldn’t imagine that it wouldn’t be attractive for someone interested in having an estate, given this community and the desire to have land.

But once the easement is in place, Hall said, it wasn’t clear what the risk was, compared to any other property in the greenbelt. With an easement, it wouldn’t be available for development.

Tom Bloomer jumped in, saying that the concern is that the land would no longer be meeting the original goal of contributing to local food production. For those parcels, it’s not simply the preservation of the land, he said. The first owner would meet that goal, because they’d apply to the greenbelt and be accepted in virtue of their farming operation. But if the farmer later decided to sell the land to a homeowner who simply wanted a big yard, then the city would have squandered its resources to buy a conservation easement that no longer met its goals.

Hall said it seemed like they were adding another layer of difficulty, and she didn’t understand why. Bloomer replied that the smaller parcels might be susceptible to different kinds of pressures than large farms are. That could be especially true if they’re located in areas where there’s already residential development. He added that there was uncertainty, however, because the greenbelt didn’t yet have experience in protecting small farms.

Trocchio pointed out that current easements stipulate what can’t be done, not what must be done. They’re not saying that small farms are more likely to go out of business, she added. They’re just trying to protect the land for the next generation.

Kohring suggested that the staff provide more information to commissioners about these options. Laura Rubin, GAC’s chair, clarified that the commission wouldn’t be taking any action at this time.

Gil Omenn asked Trocchio to share more details about the feedback they’d heard from local farmers. Trocchio said that representatives from Ann Arbor Township had also attended the subcommittee meeting. The township has its own small farm initiative. From the township’s website:

The Township’s Small Farm Initiative (SFI) endeavors to link landowners, producers and markets, and can utilize its Purchase of Development Rights program to assist in reducing the cost of land acquisition. Support for the project is provided by a three-year grant from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.

The primary outcome of the SFI is to establish small farms producing for regional markets using purchase of development rights (PDR) to reduce land costs, improve farm profitability and preserve farmland in a near-urban setting. Ann Arbor Township, with its proximity to the City of Ann Arbor and its ample open space and farmland, is an ideal location for this initiative.

In the short term, the SFI has identified interested landowners and can introduce them to prospective farmers so that both can learn about opportunities to work together and establish small farming operations. In the intermediate term, those relationships will be established and farmers will be encouraged to seek guidance in formulating sound business plans to meet market demands. The long-term outcomes (third year and beyond) will be to have established several operations and to share the results and lessons of our work with others in the immediate region, before reaching out to southeast Michigan, the entire state and beyond.

This project is being viewed as a demonstration for other communities interested in agricultural profitability, land use at the urban/rural interface and local food production. It is expected that new relationships will be created, small farm operations will be established, more local food and other produce will enter the marketplace and lessons will be learned to provide insight and establish the area as a center for innovative approaches to preserving farmland.

Trocchio said that the township’s program is proposing that farmers provide a business plan, and notify the township if there are any changes to that plan. The local farmers who attended the GAC subcommittee meeting expressed concern about sharing proprietary information that might be in a business plan. They were also concerned about the township’s level of involvement in their business, she said.

Dan Ezekiel said that there was pretty wide consensus among both growers and land preservation agencies that there should be a business plan to look at. He said he was struck by the fact that small farmers had the same concerns as large growers regarding easements – they were concerned about restrictions.

Trocchio said the Vermont Land Trust has been using “softer” language in its easements, giving the trust the option to buy land in order to keep it as active farmland, but not making the purchase mandatory. Omenn said that buying land wasn’t attractive to him – the city isn’t in the business of purchasing property, he said. Trocchio clarified that it wasn’t the intent to keep the property, but rather to provide a way to hold the land temporarily until a buyer who’d be interested in farming can be found.

Bloomer said his own view is that restrictive language isn’t the best approach, in terms of putting the city in the position of buying property. He said the subcommittee’s parting thoughts had been that they might try two or three deals with small farms, realizing that they might make some mistakes along the way. But since they wouldn’t be huge deals, he said, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if they didn’t get it quite right the first time.

Hall said it seemed like an easement on a small farm might create a new type of market for small growers. So the greenbelt program might be helping that type of business in the future, because the land already has an easement and is set up for that type of agriculture. Anyone who invests in setting up a small farm would likely want to see that same type of business exist there in the future, she said. Has that been true in other areas?

Trocchio said that this approach is very new, and there aren’t many examples of areas that are trying it. Those that are, she said, are grappling with the same issues.

Commissioner Questions & Comments: Impervious Surfaces

Rubin asked whether the subcommittee wanted GAC to take action related to impervious surfaces and non-permanent structures. Had there been consensus on the subcommittee that allowing 20% for non-permanent structures was a good move? Bloomer said there was far more consensus on that than on the other issue.

There was some discussion about whether to act on the suggestion to change the easement language for small farms to include the 20% stipulation for non-permanent structures. Bloomer noted that for large farms that are eligible for FRPP funding, easements can’t include that language because of federal requirements. Instead of making it specific to small farms, he suggested that the language regarding non-permanent structures could be optional, and added to the easement when appropriate. He also said he’d be more comfortable if they worked on a draft of the wording and brought it back for consideration at GAC’s July meeting. Other commissioners agreed to that approach.

Kohring had indicated that there was one farmer waiting for a decision from GAC on these issues before applying to the greenbelt program. Rubin asked her to convey GAC’s intention to act at the July meeting.

In addition to the small farms discussion, the commission spent nearly an hour in closed session to discuss issues related to land acquisition.

Present: Laura Rubin (chair), Jennifer Santi Hall (vice-chair), Peter Allen, Dan Ezekiel, Tom Bloomer, Gil Omenn

Absent: Mike Garfield, Carsten Hohnke, Catherine Riseng

Next meeting: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners boardroom, 220 N. Main, Ann Arbor. [confirm date] In addition, a greenbelt bus tour is scheduled for Saturday, July 17, 2010, departing from the Ann Arbor Farmers market at 11 a.m. and returning at 1 p.m. The cost is $15 and pre-registration is requested by July 10. To register, contact Ginny Trocchio at 734-794-6000 ext. 42798 or email gltrocchio@a2gov.org.

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.

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 Riseng

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]

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.

The distinctive red barn at Frederick Farm on Wagner Road. (Photo by the writer.)

Not many people attended the September meeting of the Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory Commission, so it was easy to figure out who was there, and why. Scott Rosencrans, for example, came to introduce himself to the commission – he’s the new chair of the city’s Park Advisory Commission. He said he hoped the two groups could find ways to work together, given their common interests.

Others attending had a more specific goal in mind: To see whether GAC would approve the purchase of development rights to the Frederick Farm.

The commission did approve the PDR, sending it on to Ann Arbor’s city council for a vote to authorize the deal – it might be on the council’s agenda as early as November. If approved, it would be the first time the city’s greenbelt program has undertaken an agricultural project without federal funding, and the first time they’ve made a purchase in Lodi Township. If the Legacy Land Conservancy joins in on the deal as expected, it also would mark that nonprofit’s first participation in the city’s greenbelt initiative.

The Farm and The Buyer

The Frederick Farm sits on about 100 acres in Lodi Township, with a house, barn and out-buildings facing Wagner Road, just north of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and across from Turner’s nursery. It was owned by the late Erwin and Dorothy Frederick – Erwin Frederick served as Lodi Township supervisor for more than 40 years, and his photo still hangs in the township hall.

Now owned by the Fredericks’ three grandsons – Chris, Fred and Steve Girbach – it hasn’t been an active family farm for several years, though they’ve leased out the land to other farmers for corn and soybean crops.

The parcel has attracted developers in the past. Most recently, Fairview Land Development of Auburn Hills had planned to build 450 houses on the land, but was denied a zoning request by Lodi Township, according to an April 30, 2008 article in The Ann Arbor News. Residential development would run counter to the township’s zoning for that area – the draft of a master plan that’s currently being considered by township officials designates the bulk of the township for agricultural preservation.

And that use fits the goals of Mike Vestergaard, one of the people attending GAC’s Sept. 9 meeting. If the deal for the purchase of development rights gets approved by city council, Vestergaard says he’ll realize a plan that’s been a long time in the making.

Mike Vestergaard at the Sept. 8 meeting of the Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory Commission. (Photo by the writer.)

Vestergaard first came to Michigan nearly 20 years ago as an exchange student from Denmark. He met his future wife Hope, who’s from Ann Arbor, while working as a camp counselor in northern Michigan. He returned to Denmark to finish college, majoring in dairy management, then came back to the U.S. and worked at a dairy farm in the Connecticut River Valley.

The land there was lush and fertile for farming, but residential developers were purchasing farmland at a rapid rate to build housing, Vestergaard said. It was there that he was first introduced to the concept of buying development rights.

The tool allows governments and conservancy groups to pay landowners the difference between what a developer would be willing to pay for the land, and what the land would be worth if it couldn’t be developed. It allows farmers to keep their land or preserve it, while taking advantage of the profits they would otherwise get from selling it to developers.

Moving to Ann Arbor in the mid-1990s, Vestergaard hoped to buy a farm in this area but couldn’t afford anything on the market other than a 10-acre hobby farm he now owns on East Delhi Road, where he keeps four cows and raises pigs in the summer. Instead of making farming his main business, Vestergaard started a construction company – Vestergaard & Sons – which has done pretty well, he said. “Financially, I should stay at that – there’s no doubt about it.”

But earlier this year he found out that the Frederick Farm was for sale, and that its owners might apply to be part of the greenbelt. The location – on a frequently traveled road between Saline and Ann Arbor – was perfect for the kind of operation he’d like to start: a working farm and retail store, with a strong educational component.

Calder Dairy & Farms serves a model and inspiration for what he’d like to do, Vestergaard said. That family-owned business – located in Carleton, Mich., southeast of Milan – produces milk, ice cream and other items, but also opens its farm to visitors, and has a store on site. “I thought, why is there not anything like this in Ann Arbor?” Vestergaard said.

Vestergaard also had been working with Mike Score, an agent with the local Michigan State University Extension office. Score advised Vestergaard to specialize, like Calder, and to sell what the farm produced.

Given Vestergaard’s background in dairy farming, he hopes to raise grass-fed cattle, selling the meat at the farm store along with items from other local producers, possibly including Calder, Backwoods Beef Jerky (made in Chelsea) and others. He says he wants people to see how a working farm actually operates, and to show how food can be produced safely and humanely. “I have to be able to sell this product with a good conscience,” he said.

Structuring the Deal

Vestergaard plans to invest a total of $2 million into the purchase of the farm, renovation of the old barn and construction of a store. He has offered $3,500 per acre for the property. The land, including development rights, appraised for $9,000 an acre – Vestergaard said he wouldn’t have been able to pay that amount, plus invest in the necessary renovations.

What’s lowering the price for him is the city’s pending purchase of development rights. Through the greenbelt program, the city will pay the current owners an amount that will allow them to lower the purchase price for the property, after it’s been stripped of development rights. According to a resolution passed by the Greenbelt Advisory Commission, the city’s share of that payment will not exceed $835,400.

Funds to pay for the PDR come from a millage that Ann Arbor voters passed in 2003. Approved for 30 years, the millage levies 0.5 mill annually, or 50 cents for each $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

A prototype for a sign being designed to mark land that's part of the greenbelt program. (Photo by the writer.)

Vestergaard had been working with Charlie Koenn of Swisher Commercial, who was helping him look for suitable property. Koenn is also from a local farming family – he noted that his grandfather, Herm Koenn, was friends with Erwin Frederick, and his brother still runs a dairy farm near Chelsea.

Koenn knew of other farm families who’d sold their development rights through the greenbelt program, and thought that might be a way to make the transaction work for the Frederick Farm. As part of the deal, the Girbachs are contributing 16.5% of the PDR price – meaning they’ll get 16.5% less than they would have otherwise received for the development rights.

Landowner contributions of this kind, which typically result in a tax benefit, are a common component of a PDR deal, but are not as common in farmland transactions. The city’s current policy calls for between 20-25% of the PDR price to come from matching funds from other sources, which might include landowner contributions. For agriculture deals, however, those matching funds are usually from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP.

The city applied for FRPP funds in the Frederick Farm deal, but did not receive any. Instead, Lodi Township and the Legacy Land Conservancy – an Ann Arbor-based nonprofit previously known as the Washtenaw Land Trust – have been asked to chip in, along with the landowner.

Lodi Township does not have a dedicated millage for land preservation, and The Chronicle did not receive a response from township officials about their plans to participate in the Frederick Farm PDR deal.

Susan Lackey, executive director of the Legacy Land Conservancy, said the nonprofit’s board will likely vote on the issue in November. There are several factors that make this a good transaction, she said. Preserving the farm will keep the historic connection to the land, and the kinds of things that Vestergaard hopes to do in that very visible location will highlight the local food system. The deal, which transitions the farm from one active use to another, is also proof that the greenbelt program actually works for agricultural land, she said, if the price is low enough.

Greenbelt’s Added Emphasis on Farmland

Jennifer Santi Hall, vice chair of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission, said the commission is putting more of an emphasis on land that produces food sold locally, so it’s likely there’ll be more such deals than in the past. That’s reflected in the newest version of its strategic plan, approved by GAC in March 2009:

This year, the Greenbelt Advisory Commission has identified locally produced foods, agritourism, and other agricultural specialty products sold directly to local markets as an emerging issue. Our local markets, restaurants, non-profits, and most recently, the Homegrown Festival have all focused on the environmental, health, economic and community benefits of buying and selling local foods and other agricultural specialty products. In addition, we feel that a visible connection to our Greenbelt through the foods and other products that we buy and eat provides a tangible reminder of our preservation efforts. Local foods and other crops can find their way in to our Ann Arbor economy in a number of diverse ways: the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, local food stores, direct restaurant purchases from farms, U-pick farms, and even at larger chain groceries through regional food distributors.

Recognizing that the Greenbelt’s mission and direction is solely the protection of land, the Greenbelt program will make a priority to protect those farms that are producing foods for local markets. Even without this priority in our previous strategic plans, the Greenbelt program has actually preserved several farms that provide local food or other crops to the Ann Arbor area.

To date, the Greenbelt has focused on large parcels of active agriculture, however, many farms that are likely to produce vegetables or specialty crops for sale to our local markets or restaurants are likely to be less than 40 acres. Furthermore, these parcels are likely not going to qualify for Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program grant dollars. As such, our existing scoring system precludes these types of farms from our consideration. The Greenbelt Advisory Commission will amend our scoring system to award points to those applications that are supporting local food production or direct marketing production.

[.PDF of 2009 Ann Arbor Greenbelt District Strategic Plan]

Since the greenbelt program began in 2003, the city has spent a total of  $10.089 million on 12 properties encompassing 1,321 acres in Washtenaw County – land that includes both farmland and open space. Another nearly $10 million for those purchases has come from landowner contributions, grants and partnerships with other governments.

More funds are available. As of June 30, 2009, the greenbelt fund had a balance of $11.847 million. Of that, city council has approved three additional purchases totaling $2.54 million from the greenbelt fund: The 286-acre Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township; the 51-acre William Gould property, also in Ann Arbor Township; and 265 acres owned by the Nixons in Webster Township. Those deals haven’t yet closed.

[.PDF of June 30, 2009 summary of Ann Arbor Greenbelt acquisitions]

In addition to the city of Ann Arbor, the townships of Ann Arbor, Scio and Webster also have millages for land preservation, allowing them to partner in the greenbelt. In 2003, Ann Arbor Township voters approved a 20-year, 0.7 mill property tax for that purpose. Scio Township’s 0.5 mill land preservation tax was passed in 2004 for 10 years. Webster Township’s five-year, 0.5 mill land preservation tax was approved in 2005 and is on the ballot for renewal in November, to take effect in 2010.

The other local government with a dedicated millage for land preservation is Washtenaw County, which levies 0.25 mill to fund its Natural Areas Preservation Program.

To find property that might be eligible for the greenbelt program, the city typically mails out applications and letters each year to large landowners in the greenbelt area, said Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, a consulting firm that’s managing the program for the city. The program has received nearly 80 PDR applications from landowners since the program began, including 13 so far this year.

The Conservation Fund has managed the greenbelt program since 2005, and its contract expires next year. In a Sept. 9, 2009 memo to city council, Jayne Miller, the city’s community services administrator, said she plans to issue a request for proposals on the contract this fall. According to city council minutes, in 2007 council approved a three-year contract for the Conservation Fund at $209,879 for the first year, $222,175 in year two and $233,460 for year three.