A section of Miller Creek runs through a property off of Geddes Road that the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission might help preserve, in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. The land is located in Ann Arbor Township. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners were then briefed on what WCPARC director Bob Tetens called a record monthly expenditure for his time with the commission: $3.9 million in January 2013, including $2.9 million for parks and recreation – primarily for capital improvements at Rolling Hills, Independence Lake and Sharon Mills parks – and $1 million for natural areas preservation.

Expenditures in January for the natural areas preservation program included acquiring land from the Ford Road Property LLC on the east side of Berry Road in Superior Township; for improvements at Trinkle Marsh, Spike, Hornback, and Nagle preserves; and for phase 1 due diligence on the proposed purchase of the Trolz property in Manchester Township.

The commission also approved taking the next steps on several additional natural areas preservation proposals. Those steps include applying for (1) federal funds to help cover the purchase of development rights on farmland in Superior and Lima townships, and (2) a state grant to help develop the Staebler Farm, located in Superior Township, into an active park. Commissioners also approved the purchase of a conservation easement on 82 additional acres from the Ford Road Property LLC in Superior Township.

Also discussed was a proposal to help the city of Ann Arbor buy the 8-acre Taylor property on Geddes Road, east of Huron Parkway. The land is immediately east of the city’s Ruthven nature area, and is seen as a priority because a section of Miller Creek runs through it. The creek is subject to flash flooding during heavy rains, and has been the focus of stormwater management efforts by the city and the county water resources commissioner. Conan Smith, a county commissioner who also serves on WCPARC, questioned whether this is an appropriate project for the county’s natural areas preservation program. He indicated that it might be better for the city to partner with the water resources commissioner on this project instead.

In other action, commissioners voted to increase fees at WCPARC facilities, including the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, and Independence Lake and Rolling Hills parks. A staff report indicated that the fees would still be lower than comparable public recreation facilities in this region. [.pdf of fee schedule]

WCPARC members were briefed about applications to fund eight projects through the Connecting Communities initiative, under which WCPARC helps pay for non-motorized transportation trails throughout the county. The city of Ann Arbor is among those applicants, asking for $300,000 to fund development of trails along the Allen Creek greenway, including at the city-owned 721 N. Main site. Final decisions will be made at WCPARC’s March meeting.

WCPARC members also re-elected their officers, set the 2013 meeting calendar, and got updates on two months’ worth of activities at the county’s parks and recreation facilities – including a report on flooding at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center in January, and steps toward developing a new recreation center in Ypsilanti.

The meeting was attended by six of the current nine-member commission. One vacancy remains to be filled on WCPARC by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, which appoints all WCPARC members. A vote on that position is expected at the county board’s Feb. 20 meeting.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

Several items on the Feb. 12 agenda related to the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which is funded by a 10-year countywide millage of 0.2409 mill – most recently approved by voters in 2010. It raises about $3 million in annual revenues and has preserved about 2,500 acres of land since NAPP was established in 2000. That land includes both natural areas as well as farmland.

NAPP: Graichen and Heller Properties

The Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Committee (ALPAC) advises WCPARC on matters relating to the purchase of development rights on parcels of agricultural land in the county. ALPAC has recommended that WCPARC apply for 2013 federal funding for two properties: the Graichen property, 72 acres in Superior Township; and the Heller property, 190 acres in Lima Township. [.pdf of staff memo for Heller and Graichen properties]

Map showing the Graichen property in Superior Township, indicated in yellow. The map also highlights other nearby protected land, including WCPARC’s Meyer Preserve, Superior Township’s Cherry Hill Nature Preserve, and the University of Michigan’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens. (Image from the WCPARC Feb. 12 meeting packet.)

The funds would come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). According to the FRPP website, the program “provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm and ranchland in agricultural uses.” It’s a common source of matching funds for farmland preservation, and is frequently tapped by the city of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program.

According to the staff report from consultant Tom Freeman, WCPARC had in February 2012 given permission to proceed with appraisals and discussions with landowners as needed, so that ALPAC could make final acquisition recommendations for these two properties, along with five others. All seven properties were identified as high priority, using a scoring system that the commission previously approved. At WCPARC’s Feb. 12, 2013 meeting, Freeman showed maps of the local area, topography and soils, for each of the two properties.

The Robert and Opal Graichen property lies at the northwest corner of Vreeland and Leforge roads. The soil map prepared by the nonprofit Legacy Land Conservancy for WCPARC reports that the soils are all “prime and locally important.” WCPARC’s Meyer Preserve is less than a mile to the east on Vreeland; Superior Township’s Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is about the same distance to the north and west, helping to create what Freeman called the “developing Superior Township greenway.”

The 190-acre Else Heller property is in Lima Township, south of a line running from the west end of Liberty (at Guenther Road) to Lima Center Road; a piece of it extends across Guenther Road. The Legacy Land Conservancy’s soil map identifies 144 of the acres as “prime and locally important soils.” Freeman’s presentation highlighted the presence of Mill Creek on the north end of the property, and the proximity of the segment that is east of Guenther Road to Sutton Lake.

Freeman’s presentation concluded with a reminder that these purchases would come back to WCPARC for final approval, and that the matter before the commission tonight was to authorize submission of the grant application.

NAPP: Graichen and Heller Properties – Commission Discussion

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz asked about public access to this property, should the transaction go through. Freeman said the owners would have to agree to allow periodic public visits with prior arrangement, and that this was normally done for a naturalist to present a program. The Legacy Land Conservancy, he continued, does bus tours.

“Could they please tell us when they are going to do that?” Anschuetz asked. “It’s so hard to find out about these without a newspaper.” Freeman took the opportunity to say that once WCPARC was involved, there would be wider outreach.

By way of background, the purchase of development rights (PDR) is a common mechanism for protecting farmland, letting landowners keep their property for farming but preventing – via a conservation easement – its development. Because the landowners retain ownership of the property, the land is generally not open to the public, unless at the invitation of the owners.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved ALPAC’s recommendation to apply for 2013 FRPP funding for these two properties, and to authorize staff to perform any necessary due diligence to strengthen the application.

NAPP: Ford Road Property LLC

Tom Freeman presented a written report, slides, and a verbal description of a proposal regarding an 82-acre property in Superior Township on the north side of Ford Road east of Berry Road. It was nominated for purchase in February 2012 and WCPARC’s Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee had recommended purchase of a conservation easement on the land. [.pdf of Ford Road Property staff memo]

Map showing two Ford Road Property LLC parcels (encircled) that the county is purchasing for its natural areas preservation program. A third parcel, which fronts Ford Road, is not part of this deal. The land is located in Superior Township.

Freeman reminded the commission that at their Dec. 11, 2012 meeting, WCPARC had approved outright purchase of two adjacent parcels totaling 65 acres. Freeman’s report stated that the agricultural portion of these 82 acres was not deemed appropriate for outright purchase through NAPP. Instead, the report continued, “purchase of a conservation easement on the agricultural portion of the Ford Road property would offer a valuable buffer to the recently purchased natural area [to the north].”

Superior Township has expressed a desire to have a farmer own the land, farm it and pay taxes on it, according to Freeman’s report. The current owner, Ford Road Property LLC, sees it as potential residential land. However,, a realtor has found a Superior Township-based farmer, Freeman said, who wants to farm it and is willing to sell the conservation easement. The land contains a stream that is part of the headwaters of the Rouge River. Access will be through Superior Township’s Schroeter Park, on the north side of land that WCPARC purchased in December, where there is already a parking lot. Bosserd Appraisal placed a value of $413,000 for a conservation easement on the 82 acres.

NAPP: Ford Road Property LLC – Commission Discussion

WCPARC president Bob Marans commented on the collective value of these purchases. “If you could look back a hundred years from now, this is huge,” he said. Freeman added that WCPARC would work with the township to continue to build high quality trails, and that the property would be available for seasonal pre-arranged tours; he planned to meet with Superior Township officials the next day to talk further about this.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the motion authorizing staff to prepare a purchase offer for the southern portion, approximately 82 acres of the Ford Road Property LLC at a price of $413,000 for a conservation easement, contingent on the completion of all necessary due diligence of the property and the commission’s final approval.

NAPP: Taylor Property

This 8-acre parcel on the north side of Geddes Road is immediately east of the city of Ann Arbor’s Ruthven nature area. The current owners, who could by right put residential development on the land, contacted the city, which “immediately asked us to partner with them,” Freeman reported. [.pdf of staff memo for Taylor property]

WCPARC’s Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC) identified the property as a high priority in a Nov. 12, 2012 memo. The Ann Arbor Township property, Freeman said, is densely overgrown with invasive species so much that walking it is difficult. Most significantly, Miller Creek runs through the property, under Geddes Road, and into the Huron River at the Gallup Park parking lot. The creek is subject to flash flooding during large rain events, in spite of work done on it by the county water resources commission and the city of Ann Arbor, Freeman said, adding that the city wants to take the lead on this. [The city's acquisition of parkland and land preservation efforts are funded through a 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage that voters approved in 2003.]

By way of background, according to the nonprofit Huron River Watershed Council, Miller Creek “is degraded due to a high amount of impervious surface in its watershed, and alterations to the stream channel. Stream monitoring data show Millers Creek to be in poor condition overall. According to the city of Ann Arbor:

Millers Creek drains only 2.4 square miles, making it one of the smallest watersheds in the Huron River system. However, the creek is also the steepest tributary to the Huron, averaging a gradient of 52 feet per mile. The creek runs along Huron Parkway from Plymouth Road to the Huron River. The stream’s steep gradient, combined with extensive impervious surface in the watershed and straightening of the stream channel over time contribute to extremely flashy flows in Millers Creek during storm events.

NAPP: Taylor Property – Commission Discussion

At the WCPARC Feb. 12 meeting, Bob Marans asked Freemen, “How would NATAC have valued this [property] if the city had not approached us to partner?” Freeman’s response: “If this were out in the country, it would not be so attractive. What is valuable here is the location – this property has daily impact on the quality of the Huron River. The stream has been highly affected by development elsewhere in the city, which makes sediment flow into the [Huron] River.”

Map showing the location of the Taylor property in Ann Arbor Township, outlined in black within the black circle.

Freeman’s recommendation was that WCPARC contribute $27,500 – about 25% of the estimated $110,000 cost – to help the city buy the property, and in return obtain a guarantee that the property would always be open to the public, and that WCPARC’s contribution be recognized with a sign.

Conan Smith, who represents one of the Ann Arbor districts on the county board of commissioners, asked whether the property could be developed residentially, given that part of it is in the floodplain. Freeman indicated that it would be possible to build on the west side of the property. He continued: “We could do what we did with Malletts Creek at the County Farm Park, slowing the water down, allowing it to overflow its banks onto the west side of the property.” [The Malletts Creek bank stabilization project was discussed most recently at WCPARC's May 8, 2012 meeting.]

Smith replied: “Isn’t that engineering rather than natural area preservation?” Freeman allowed that treating this area “as we did with Malletts Creek would require a huge investment. What we can do [on the Taylor property] is keep the creek from being subjected to the additional hard surfaces of residential development.”

Smith said he “was not sold on this as NAPP” and that although he could support the next step to approve completing all necessary due diligence, he could not yet support the purchase itself. He said his preference is that he and Evan Pratt, the county water resources commissioner, and “one other person” approach the drain board and asked that the office of the water resources commissioner partner with the city on this property, rather than WCPARC. Smith mentioned that it would fit with the Huron River Green Infrastructure Drainage District, which uses tree plantings for stormwater management project within the city of Ann Arbor. [At its Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved petitioning the county water resources commissioner to proceed with this green infrastructure project, at a cost of $300,000.]

Freeman replied to Smith: “What I struggle with is once this [property] becomes available, it has a momentum. What is proposed here is for the city to purchase this to make it part of Ruthven, and we would partner in return for getting access.”

Outcome: Commissioner Jan Anschuetz moved to authorize “the option to work with water resources,” and there was unanimous approval.

Connecting Communities

Commissioners received a separate packet consisting of a background memo on the Connecting Communities program, and copies of six applications for funding, which covered eight proposed projects. [.pdf of staff memo]

According to the staff memo, in May 2009 WCPARC authorized the Connecting Communities initiative, through which it would make up to $600,000 available annually from 2010 through 2014 – a total of $3 million – toward the cost of eligible trail projects. According to the memo, “eligible projects will be those that accomplish the Commission’s primary objective of providing valuable non-motorized connections between communities and activity centers, offering a healthy alternative for recreation, transportation, fitness, and energy conservation.”

WCPARC developed criteria for selecting projects, which include:

• ten primary considerations (e.g. highway, river, railroad and other barrier crossings);
• fourteen types of projects generally not eligible (e.g. trails solely within existing local parks);
• six review criteria that applicants must use to document a compelling need for a project (e.g. that the project directly relates to the county’s important natural features, such as a river, and notes that the Huron River corridor is WCPARC’s highest priority)
• five secondary criteria that apply to high-ranking projects (e.g. project quality and land availability or encumbrances).

The process for selecting projects to be funded involves a staff review of the applications. The projects are then presented to the projects to the Greenways Advisory Committee, which provides input that staff uses to prioritize the applications and make recommendations to WCPARC for final approval.

Connecting Communities: Summary of Applications

The applications for 2013 include:

• Ann Arbor: $300,000 (of total cost of $1 million) for 1,500 feet of trail, part of a project for the “development of pathways, storm water features to improve the quality of Allen Creek…on property which will serve as a trailhead for the proposed Allen Creek Greenway.” The site includes city property at 721 N. Main. Paths will connect Felch Street to both North Main and west Summit Street. The proposal states that the city will also apply for a match from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund (MDNRTF), and that the city will consider using the adopt-a-park program to help maintain the facility.
• Village of Dexter: $300,000 (the total cost) for the final 1,300 feet of trail connecting Dexter Huron Metropark to Dexter, as part of the countywide border-to-border trail. The trail will run from the current end of the trail to Central Street.
• Northfield Township: $230,000 (of total cost of $600,000) for 2,925 feet of trail along Barker Road in Whitmore Lake, connecting Whitmore Lake’s downtown with the Northfield Township Library and Whitmore Lake Elementary School. This is the third phase of a project that received $120,000 in 2010 and $250,000 in 2011.
• Pittsfield Township: $400,000 (of total cost of $1.8 million) for 1.8 miles of trail, phase 2 of the Lohr-Textile greenway, extending it east from the corner of Lohr and Textile, on Textile, to the Marshview Meadow Park and the Pittsfield Preserve. Other potential project funders include MDNRTF ($300,000) and MDOT/SEMCOG ($1,064,708). This project received $300,000 in 2010 and $290,000 in 2011.
• Superior Township: $300,000 for two projects: 2,700 feet of trail along the east side of Prospect Road from Clark Road to the north side of Berkshire Drive (total cost $406,000); and 2,200 feet of trail along the south side of Geddes Road from Andover Circle to the Ridge Road roundabout (total cost of $267,000).
• Ypsilanti Township: $295,000 for two projects totaling 4,032 feet (total cost of $310,000). One project (2032 feet) would run along the east side of Tuttle Hill Road from Textile Road north across South Huron River Drive and into Ford Lake Park; the other (1,000 feet) would run on the south side of Textile from just east of South Huron River Drive to the entrance of Lakeview mobile homes. The township received $100,000 in 2010 and $250,000 in 2011, and has pledged $100,000 for project engineering.

Connecting Communities: Commission Discussion

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz asked about the Ann Arbor application. “What if they don’t get the [MDNRTF] grant?” WCPARC director Bob Tetens replied: “Then they would not get our money. When we pledge, we put it on the table only until we know whether they get the other money. If they don’t, the money would roll into the next year.”

Outcome: There was no vote. WCPARC staff expects to make recommendations to the commission at the March 12, 2013 meeting.

Funds to Develop Staebler Farm

Planner Coy Vaughn presented information about the recommendation to prepare and submit an application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund for funding to start development on part of the 98-acre Staebler farm site for active use. [.pdf of staff memo on MDNRTF application] [As background, the site is in Superior Township, east of Prospect Road and south of M-14. It is bisected by Plymouth Road and edges both Frains Lake and Murray Lake. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "County Parks: Options for Staebler Farm"]

From left: Bob Marans, president of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission, and WCPARC director Bob Tetens.

WCPARC acquired the land in 2001, Vaughn said, and has “invested considerable effort and funds to repair and preserve a loafing barn, cattle barn, horse barn, milk house, and corn crib.” Vaughn’s report suggested that completing a master site development plan and providing entrance drives to allow public access would cost $750,000. The proposal is to apply for $300,000 from MDNRTF – the maximum grant level that’s awarded.

Both Vaughn and WCPARC director Bob Tetens expressed optimism about the success of the application. “We’ve had a lot of success the last few years, and not been denied in several years,” Vaughn said. Tetens chimed in: “Not since I’ve been here.” Vaughn noted that the WCPARC applications line up well with the MDNRTF grant criteria.

The outline plan that Vaughn presented put active uses on the north side of Plymouth Road, retaining the south side (where Don Staebler still lives) for pasturage and hayfields. He reviewed previous thinking about the site: to preserve the character of the historic property with active farming that would also support the local food movement; to celebrate the agricultural heritage of the county and the evolution of agricultural practices; to provide park amenities; and to take advantage of the water resources on the site. Vaughn added that WCPARC staff have met with Superior Township staff to be sure they agree with these ideas.

The first phase of development, Vaughn said, would be a trail, fishing pier, pavilion, parking, interpretive signs, and further improvement of structures on the site.

Funds to Develop Staebler Farm: Commission Discussion

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked whether the site would have to be rezoned. No, replied Vaughn, but the township might require a site plan. Commissioner Jan Anschuetz asked whether the grant would be for the first phase, and the answer was affirmative. Tetens clarified that the application is due April 1, and there has to be a public hearing, which will occur at the March 12 WCPARC meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to authorize staff to prepare and submit a grant application, and to hold a public hearing at the March 12 commission meeting.

Fees for WCPARC Facilities

Director Bob Tetens introduced the topic by saying: “We have to raise fees, but we don’t want to raise very much.” Coy Vaughn, WCPARC planner, added that with all the improvements and additions to Independence Lake and Rolling Hills parks, which will have facilities they did not have previously, staff compared costs at similar facilities in the area to make the fee proposal. [.pdf of staff memo on proposed fee schedule]

For Rolling Hills, which has had no price increase since 2003, the proposal calls for raising all fees by $1 (but only 50 cents on weekdays after 5 p.m.). The proposal also includes increasing rent for the Great Room from $100 to $125, and eliminating the hourly rental option.

Independence Lake Blue Heron Bay – the new spray-and-play zone – will have a separate entrance fee per day of $4 for county residents and $5 for non-residents. Weekdays after 5 p.m., the fee would be discounted by $1. Children age and under can enter at no charge.

At the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, the annual fees for county residents would be increased as follows:

• Adult (16-61): from $220 to $230, renewal at $220.
• Youth, senior, disabled: from $165 to $180, renewal at $170.
• Over 80: from $50 to $60.
• Family (up to 6, no more than two over 18): from $480 to $495, renewal at $485.
• Non-resident fees will be 50% more than resident fees in all categories.
• Daily fees for adults will go from $7 to $8, and those for youth, seniors and disabled from $5 to $6, with non-resident daily fees $1 higher.
• Independent personal trainer and private swim instructor fees will go up 10%.

The staff report stated that “among the facilities similar to MLM, only the Livonia Rec Center charges less for adult passes, $206.” The report noted that the Livonia facility is heavily subsidized by the city’s general fund. “With an average adult fee of $266 among the public rec centers,” the report continued, “and an average of $538 among the local private gyms, we can justify an increase….”

The report contained charts of fees for publicly owned facilities in Canton, Dearborn, Livonia, Saline, and Troy, averaging $266. Locally, fees for Ann Arbor’s YMCA, Anytime Fitness, Arbor Fit, Liberty Athletic, One-on-One, Planet Fitness, and Washtenaw Community College averaged $538.

Commission discussion was limited to brief comments, agreeing that people are still getting a bargain at MLMRC.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the new fee structure at all locations.

Financial Reports

Because WCPARC’s January 2013 meeting had been canceled, commissioners reviewed financial reports for two months.

Financial Reports: Claims in January 2013

Total claims for January reached $3,912,657 – including $2,265,456 for capital improvements at park facilities. WCPARC director Bob Tetens gave a report to commissioners with highlights, including road and trail construction at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks; and bridge replacement at Sharon Mills. [.pdf of January 2013 claims report]

In addition, WCPARC paid $121,000 to the city of Ann Arbor for stormwater fees that had been paid by county facilities on behalf of WCPARC; the city will, in turn, repay the county. In addition, WCPARC paid $373,591 toward partnerships, the second largest monthly expense, including a total of $340,000 to Chelsea, Northfield Township, and Saline.

The natural areas preservation program’s expenses in January were $1,003,799. This included closing on the first Ford Road purchase, approved by WCPARC in December 2012; constructing an overlook in Trinkle Marsh; $83,000 for a boardwalk and parking lot at the Spike Preserve; a $64,000 contribution to a conservation easement on the Hornback property in Salem Township; $40,000 to Mannik and Smith for a phase I environmental assessment on the Trolz property west of Manchester; and improvements at the Nagle and Squires preserves.

Bob Marans asked whether, now that all reports are in electronic form, the printed report could include more details, rather than getting them in an oral report. Tetens agreed to do that.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the claims for January.

Financial Reports: Claims in February 2013

The claims report for February 2013 totaled only $94,588 for parks facilities and functions, plus $119,215 for NAPP – a total for the month of $213,802. The NAPP expense included acquiring a conservation easement in the Drake Preserve. There was no commission discussion. [.pdf of February 2013 claims report]

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the claims for February.

Financial Reports: Year-end 2012

Tetens supplemented the written report with comments on the financials at the end of WCPARC’s fiscal year – Dec. 31, 2012. There were separate reports for parks facilities and functions, and the natural areas preservation program (NAPP). [.pdf of WCPARC fund balance statements]

Parks began with a fund balance of $20,412,417 on Jan. 1, 2012, and ended the year with a projected (unaudited) balance of $12,245,536. On the revenue side, property taxes exceeded budget expectations by $241,863, and fees by $376,329, putting total revenue at $10,219,773. Actual expenses totaled $17,690,375. The top two expenses were $11,091,512 for land development and $4,041,245 for personnel services.

WCPARC planner Meghan Bonfiglio and commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr.

In addition, WCPARC had $6.7 million in an operating reserve, and $50,000 for partnerships, both functioning as expenses. Conan Smith asked Tetens whether WCPARC gets a report from county treasurer Catherine McClary on its investments. Tetens replied that he had not requested that, and was “not sure she can break it out by department.”

NAPP’s beginning fund balance was $9,374,016. Its revenue, primarily property taxes, was $3,357,670. Expenses were well under projections, primarily because land acquisitions, with a budget of $3.2 million, only used $1,638,416. The projected fund balance of $10,818,369 includes money set aside for land stewardship and management.

As background, WCPARC administers the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which the county board established in 2000. NAPP is funded with a 10-year millage of 0.2409 mills, which voters renewed in 2010. Since 2002 – the first year that millage proceeds were received – the millage has generated about $37 million in revenues. The ordinance enables WCPARC to accumulate these funds, and expend them as properties are identified. With that funding, WCPARC has protected 2,459 acres, often in partnership with other organizations.

Recreation Reports

WCPARC staff gave several reports and updates related to the county’s recreation facilities.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

Bob Tetens characterized use and revenue from the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center on Washtenaw Avenue as he has in the past – “stable.” [.pdf of MLM Rec Center report]

In 2012, there were 5,093 memberships that brought in $737,305 in revenue. That’s down from 5,584 memberships in 2011 and $750,008 in revenue. In 2010, memberships were 5,368 and revenue was $736,580. Daily passes and revenue have also declined: 28,071 passes in 2012 ($177,501); 29,748 passes in 2011 ($187,283); and 38,174 in 2010 ($199,364).

In 2012, the center reported overall participation of 325,234 resulting in revenue of $1,218,007. That compares to a count of 339,946 people in 2011 ($1,244,205 in revenue); and 333,865 in 2010 ($1,245,167 in revenue). So the center saw a 4.3% decline in participation and a 2.1% decline in revenue from 2011 to 2012.

The January 2013 report showed participation by 33,151 people and revenue of $157,372, compared to 34,901 ($142,232) in January 2012 and 35,430 ($147,811) in 2011.

Conan Smith asked about the decline in daily passes, especially in light of the concurrent decrease in memberships. Bob Marans asked whether any surveys are taken in the building, to gauge usage.

Tetens said he did not think the decline was due to competition from the Ann Arbor YMCA or the Washtenaw Community College facility, because they are “a different market from Meri Lou Murray.” He pointed to warmer weather in 2012 as affecting use of MLMRC.

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

Tetens called the report on the Pierce Lake Golf Course “very very good,” with 2012 showing the greatest use and highest revenues ever for the course. In 2012, 19,278 golfers paid $399,242 in green fees, compared to 15,836 ($346,049) in 2011 and 18,477 ($338,905) in 2010. [.pdf of Pierce Lake report]

Retail operations took in $110,589 in 2012, compared to $89,523 in 2011 and $92,325 in 2010. Total revenue in 2012 was $614,620, up from $526,501 in 2011 and $532,415 in 2010. Tetens attributed the increase to the investments in food and beverage, including a stone patio and liquor license obtained in the summer of 2010. He expressed hope that business would increase in the future because the pavilion’s size is now twice what it was.

Recreation Reports: Independence Lake Park

Both attendance and revenue at Independence Lake Park continue to increase: 17,743 ($137,217) in 2012; 17,019 ($132,602) in 2011; and 16,886 ($132,419) in 2010. [.pdf of Independence Lake Park report]

The percent of annual users who are non-residents of the county was 6.2% in 2012; 5.1% in 2011, and 4.5% in 2010. The percent of non-resident daily users is higher, though it has shown a decrease in recent years: 28.8% in 2012, 32.1% in 2011, and 31.6% in 2010.

Annual revenue peaked in 2012 at $211,578. That compares to $209,960 in 2011, and $201,731 in 2010. Tetens called attention to the increase in day camp attendance: 928 in 2012, up from 600 in 2011 and 495 in 2010.

Recreation Reports: Rolling Hills Park and Water Park

The park section of Rolling Hills Park saw 34,788 attendees and $268,288 in revenue in 2012, about the same as 2011, with attendance of 34,844 ($267,130). [.pdf of Rolling Hills report]

In 2010, attendance was 33,780 ($259,990). County non-residents accounted for 5.41% of the annual users, but 46.99% of the daily users. In 2011, non-residents were 3.95% of annual attendance and 46.55% daily; and in 2010, 3.89% annual and 46.29% daily.

The water park section of Rolling Hills, which requires an additional entrance fee, had 114,522 users who paid a total of $780,122 to enter. In 2011 there were 115,012 uses ($780,995), and 113,635 ($761,453) in 2010.

Overall revenue at Rolling Hills was $1,322,131 in 2012; $1,310,515 in 2011; and $1,249,894 in 2010.

Outcome: All recreation reports were received for filing.

Project and Activities Updates

WCPARC meetings typically include a range of updates on parks and recreation projects that are underway, as well as activities within the system.

Project and Activities Updates: Development Projects

Bob Tetens reported on continuing work at Independence Lake Park, where a new water park with an administration/ticket sales and a bathhouse building are under construction, along with spray and play water features that include interactive devices – kids can use their hands to control the amount of water. Tetens highlighted the details such as images of herons, cattails, dragonflies and butterflies in the railings; the standing-seam metal roof; and the water slides, which are the main attractions. One is completely enclosed – commission member Jan Anschuetz called it the “panic attack” feature. Tetens underlined the fact that the play area is fenced off so kids can’t wander into the lake. There is “a beautiful new grill in the concession area,” he concluded.

At Rolling Hills Park, which will have a soft opening the weekend before Memorial Day, there is a new 450-space parking lot leading to a more dramatic entry with a courtyard, a new 32-foot water slide tower, and a new park headquarters building. Tetens also noted, with appreciation to the commission, the value of the new snow removal and snow grading equipment, which has been used this winter.

[See Chronicle coverage of WCPARC's July 24, 2012 meeting, when the projects at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks were discussed in detail.]

Project and Activities Updates: East County Recreation Center

The concept for a new recreation center just east of downtown Ypsilanti continues to move forward. It would be at the northwest corner of the 38-acre Water Street development site. [For additional background on this project, see Chronicle coverage: "Public Gives Input on East County Rec Center"]

Tetens updated WCPARC on one component: A section of the border-to-border trail that will run from Riverside Park, across Michigan Avenue, and along the west side of the proposed rec center on the east bank of the Huron River. Currently the county is negotiating with the owner of Fischer Honda for an easement across his property that would contain a bridge, and with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for a HAWK signal. [A HAWK – High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon – is a signal that a pedestrian can activate to stop traffic and allow a safe crossing.]

Tetens said he is very optimistic about getting permission from MDOT, because the pedestrian counts met the warrants for establishing such a crossing. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. called attention to the need to coordinate the two efforts: “Before we give money to Honda, we have to be sure we can build the bridge and do the crossing.”

Tetens said they would use an escrow account to hold payment for the property until the bridge and the crossing were assured. Several commission members commented on the increased activity and number of residents in downtown Ypsilanti. Jan Anschuetz said “You can’t rent a loft, and Linda [French] is putting $1.2 million into her building [the Sidetrack Bar]. You can’t park in Ypsi at ten at night.”

Project and Activities Updates: Ann Arbor Skatepark

The proposed Ann Arbor skatepark, to be located on the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor – across Dexter Road from Aldi’s – has been approved in concept by the Ann Arbor city council, Tetens reported, and will be released for bids next month. He also said the city is asking for state money to share the cost of handling stormwater.

Ann Arbor skatepark sign at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park.

Coy Vaughn showed a slide of the proposal, and commissioner Bob Marans commented that the design is very different from the original concept.

Tetens responded: “People will drive for three or four hours to use this – there is nothing like it anywhere near here.” Jan Anschuetz stated that if WCPARC hadn’t offered a matching grant, this project wouldn’t have happened. [The county put forward $400,000 in matching funds for the project.] Tetens laughed, saying “that was the year we offered matching grants on a lot of projects and never thought so many of them would come through.” Conan Smith praised Ann Arbor parks and recreation manager Colin Smith, saying he was “awesome.” [The two Smiths are not related.]

Project and Activities Updates: Flood at Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

Bob Tetens told commissioners that “it was a quiet Friday morning [Jan. 25, 2013] when I got a call about 10 a.m. – we had to evacuate the rec center.” While Tetens narrated, Coy Vaughn showed video from a security camera that was aimed at the source of the water: a fire suppression system leak caused by extreme cold weather.

Tetens described the staff response, as excellent, saying it was so effective that the building re-opened at 5 p.m. that day. “When I walked in,” he said, “I thought we would be closed for a week or more.” He went on to describe the extent of the damage, when the water extended into the “main intersection” of the building, down the stairs, cascading into utility rooms and locker rooms, into heat outlets, light fixtures, and even the elevator. Staff streamed in from field operations and all the parks. They stopped the flow of water, removed water in the building, cleaned outlets and restored electricity, and had the elevator inspected before they could reopen.

Project and Activities Updates: Paving Jennings Road

Tetens reported on a meeting with the county road commission to plan for paving about two miles of Jennings Road. [Jennings Road provides the best route to the county's Independence Lake Park for anyone living south of North Territorial.]

He reported on an agreement in which WCPARC, Webster Township, and the road commission to split the cost three ways, with the road commission “fronting the money and the other two paying them back over three years.” The matter, he said, would come to WCPARC for final approval in a couple of months.

Commissioner Conan Smith asked whether anyone was working with the residents. Tetens replied: “That’s the township’s job. From what I hear, people want it paved, but the next thing we’ll hear is people are driving too fast once it’s paved.”

Project and Activities Updates: Stewardship Proposal

Tetens reported on the result of WCPARC’s Sept. 2013 proposal to the county board of commissioners to modify the NAPP ordinance. [See Chronicle coverage: "Change to Natural Areas Ordinance OK'd"]

The change directs specific fund allocations between acquiring and maintaining natural areas (75%) and agricultural land (25%). Funds used for natural areas are further divided: 93% for acquisition, and 7% for stewardship and maintenance.  WCPARC had suggested the 93%/7% split be changed to 75%/25%. However, as Tetens reported, the county board’s response was to instead give WCPARC discretion about how to spend the 75% of all NAPP funds that can be used for natural areas.

Tetens told WCPARC he would come back with a proposed organizational structure to implement the change. He indicated that there would be two steps: first, adding “a couple of positions.” But also, he said, “we won’t spend all the funds we have available for stewardship or management, so that by 2020 [when the NAPP millage expires] we won’t be forced into asking for re-authorization. We hope to save enough money to pay for stewardship forever, or, in the worst case, ask for a lower millage. There is only so much land we can buy”

Conan Smith, who also serves on the county board of commissioners, complimented Tetens: “Your structure is very smart, dividing this up into three parts: purchase, manage, and stewardship.”

New Members, Election of Officers

WCPARC’s Feb. 12 meeting was the first recent one for new member Conan Smith, whose presence brought the number of WCPARC members up to nine. Smith had previously served on WCPARC, prior to his stint as chair of the county board of commissioners for the past two years. When he rotated off that chairmanship at the end of 2012, he asked his colleagues on the county board to reappoint him to WCPARC. For the past two years that position on WCPARC had been held by county commissioner Dan Smith.

All members of WCPARC are appointed by the county board of commissioners. At their Dec. 5, 2012 meeting, the county board appointed former county water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin as a community member to WCPARC. Evan Pratt, who was elected water resources commissioner in November 2102, took a seat on WCPARC by virtue of that position – it’s mandated that the water resources commissioner serve on WCPARC. Leaving WCPARC at the end of 2012 were former county commissioner Barbara Bergman and public member Jimmie Maggard.

Of WCPARC’s 10 membership positions, up to three can be from the county board. At their Jan. 16, 2013 meeting, the county commissioners made appointments to all of the county’s boards and commissions, including WCPARC. Currently, commissioners Conan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. serve on WCPARC.

One vacancy on WCPARC remains to be filled by the county board. A vote on that position is expected at the board’s Feb. 20 meeting, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.

At WCPARC’s Feb. 12 meeting, president Bob Marans announced that the time had come to elect new officers. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. responded by moving to re-elect all of the current officers: Marans (president), Patricia Scribner (vice president), and Nelson K. Meade (secretary).

Outcome: Without discussion, the motion passed unanimously. 

Meeting Calendar for 2013

WCPARC’s Jan. 8, 2013 meeting had been cancelled for lack of business. So the meeting calendar for 2013 was presented for approval on Feb. 12. The commission meets on the second Tuesday of each month. Remaining meetings are scheduled for March 12, April 9, May 14, June 11, Aug. 13, Sept. 10, Nov. 12, and Dec. 10. Bob Tetens reminded WCPARC that usually either the July or August meeting is skipped.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners approved the 2013 meeting calendar.

Present: Robert Marans, Patricia Scribner, Rolland Sizemore, Jr., Nelson Meade, Jan Anschuetz, Conan Smith.

Absent: Janis Bobrin, Evan Pratt, Fred Veigel. [There also is one vacancy on the commission.]

Staff present: Director Robert Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, planner Meghan Bonfiglio, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Next meeting: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor, in the County Farms property.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From left: Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioners Laura Rubin and Archer Christian, and Ginny Trocchio (standing) of The Conservation Fund, who provides staff support for the greenbelt program. (Photos by the writer.)

A resolution of recognition was presented to Mary Fales, senior assistant attorney for the city of Ann Arbor; Matt Keir, vice president of Liberty Title; Rosanne Bloomer, a lending officer for Greenstone Farm Credit Services – and wife of GAC commissioner Tom Bloomer; and Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who provides staff support for the greenbelt program.

GAC chair Dan Ezekiel praised their work, noting that certain factors – including a change in tax law – had added pressure to complete the deals before Dec. 31. The transactions protected a total of about 320 acres in Webster, Salem and Superior townships.

Trocchio also reported that the purchase of development rights for part of the Donald Drake farm – 124 acres of farmland in Lodi Township – had closed earlier this year, making it the first deal of 2013. More than 4,200 acres have now been protected under the greenbelt program, she noted.

Another topic highlighted at the Feb. 7 meeting was the need to recruit new members for the commission. Liz Rother resigned earlier this year, though her term runs through June 30, 2014. Ezekiel also pointed out that he and two other commissioners – Laura Rubin and Tom Bloomer – will be leaving the commission this summer, when their terms expire. All three are term-limited. He urged members of the public to consider applying.

The meeting ended with commissioners voting to approve recommendations for additional land preservation deals. Two of those items – seeking approval to apply for grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) – are now on the agenda for the Ann Arbor city council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. The properties are both in Lodi Township: (1) another part of the Drake farm – 72 acres along Waters Road; and (2) the Carol Schumacher farm – about 100 acres along Pleasant Lake Road.

Resolution of Recognition

Commissioners formally thanked four people who worked on completing land preservation deals in December of 2012.

From left: Mary Fales, senior assistant attorney for the city of Ann Arbor, and Matt Keir, vice president at Liberty Title. They were recognized for their help in completing four land preservation deals at the end of 2012.

The resolution recognized: (1) Mary Fales, senior assistant attorney for the city of Ann Arbor; (2) Matt Keir, vice president of Liberty Title; (3) Rosanne Bloomer, a lending officer for Greenstone Farm Credit Services; and (4) Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who provides staff support for the greenbelt program.

GAC chair Dan Ezekiel noted that the four deals needed to be completed by the end of 2012 because tax laws were changing after Dec. 31, and landowners wanted to close the transactions before that happened. Another complicating factor was that the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office was closed for an extended time near year’s end, so there was even less time to complete the deals.

The four transactions were purchase of development rights (PDRs) for the following properties:

• The Van Natter farm in Webster Township – about 20 acres, along Joy Road. It’s part of more than 1,100 acres of farmland protected in Webster Township. Vegetables grown on the property are sold at the Dexter Farmers Market and at the farm’s roadside stand. The city paid $126,867 in this deal, which was approved by city council on March 19, 2012. [.pdf of map showing Van Natter property]
• The Robbin Alexander farm, also in Webster Township – about 90 acres along Northfield Church Road. The same farmer also owns Alexander Farm Market on Whitmore Lake Road and North Territorial. The total cost was $394,417. Of that, Ann Arbor contributed $226,837. The deal was approved by city council on Sept. 4, 2012. [.pdf of map showing Alexander property]
• The Robert Schultz farm in Superior Township –  about 136 acres along Harris and Geddes roads. The total cost was $523,567, including $294,247 from Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council approved this deal on Sept. 4, 2012. [.pdf of map showing Schultz property]
• The Dan and Amy Hornback property in Salem Township – about 73 acres along Pontiac Trail and Brookville Road. The city contributed $199,367 in this deal, which was approved by city council on Oct. 1, 2012. It was the first time that the city partnered with Salem Township. The township contributed $64,200 toward the purchase price, as did the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. [.pdf of map showing Hornback property]

Fales and Keir were on hand and spoke briefly to commissioners. Fales described it as a team effort, and Keir said that Liberty Title – the city’s closing agent for these transactions – appreciated the business. He noted that the company is based in Ann Arbor, and that he was glad to see the greenbelt program making this city a better place to live and work.

Ezekiel observed that Rosanne Bloomer couldn’t attend the meeting, but he noted that Tom Bloomer – her husband and a GAC member – could accept the recognition on her behalf. In thanking Trocchio, Ezekiel described her as “the straw that stirred the drink,” coordinating efforts to pull off the transactions.

Trocchio pointed out that the greenbelt program has now protected more than 4,200 acres since the program’s inception in 2003. That’s more than had been anticipated, she said, calling it an exciting achievement.

Ezekiel described the recent transactions as going “corner to corner” within the greenbelt boundaries, from Salem Township in the northeast to Lodi Township in the southwest.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution of recognition.

Commission Vacancies – Current & Upcoming

Ginny Trocchio announced that Liz Rother has resigned from the commission for personal reasons. Rother had been appointed in 2011 as a public-at-large member for a term ending June 30, 2014. Trocchio asked other commissioners for help in finding a new member.

For most city commissions, members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council. However, greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council. So anyone who’s interested in applying for the position should contact their city council representative. [.pdf of application form for city boards and commissions]

Dan Ezekiel pointed out that he and two other commissioners – Laura Rubin and Tom Bloomer – will be leaving the commission this summer, when their terms expire. All three are term-limited. He urged members of the public to consider applying.

Ezekiel’s position is also for a public-at-large slot. Bloomer fills the farmer category – he owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township. Rubin, who is executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, represents the category for environmental organizations.

In looking ahead at the commission’s future work, Ezekiel noted that the tasks would transition from a focus on land acquisition to a role of stewardship, as the amount of money available in the greenbelt program decreases. Commissioners will take on more of an outreach role, he said, informing the public about the program’s achievements and the land that’s already been protected. Ezekiel said Rother had been particularly good at that.

Communications

The meeting included several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners. No one spoke during the two opportunities for public commentary.

Communications: Drake Farm

In her staff report, Ginny Trocchio told commissioners that in late January the city had closed on the purchase of development rights for the Donald Drake farm in Lodi Township.

From left: Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioners Peter Allen and Tom Bloomer.

The Ann Arbor city council had authorized the deal at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting. The 124-acre farm is located along Waters Road in northwest Lodi Township. The city’s expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 covered costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land was $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County parks and recreation, and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

The deal was somewhat complicated. Earlier in the meeting, GAC chair Dan Ezekiel had noted that the deal involved issues related to an inheritance and tax considerations. In March of 2012, the city had applied for – but was not awarded – USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grants for this property. Ultimately, the city split the deal into two separate transactions. The deal that closed earlier this year was for the purchase of development rights on the southern portion of the farm. The city plans to reapply for FRPP funds in 2013 for the northern portion of the farm.

Communications: Conservation Fund Contract

Trocchio noted that the Ann Arbor city council has authorized a new contract with The Conservation Fund. Trocchio is the local employee of The Conservation Fund, a nonprofit that manages operations for the city’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs. Those programs are funded by a 30-year 0.5 mill open space and parkland preservation millage that voters approved in 2003.

The Conservation Fund, headquartered in the suburbs of Washington D.C., has held the contract since the greenbelt program launched. The new 18-month contract authorized by the city council on Jan. 7, 2013 was for $156,230, with two one-year renewal options. The Conservation Fund was the only entity that submitted a bid to the city’s request for proposals (RFP).

Communications: Cherry Republic

Trocchio reported that Cherry Republic, which operates a downtown Ann Arbor store at the corner of Main and Liberty, is contributing $5,000 toward land preservation in the greenbelt. The business previously gave $2,500 to the city in 2011, when the Ann Arbor store first opened.

Communications: Strategic Plan

Commissioner Archer Christian asked Trocchio for an update on the strategic plan. At GAC’s Dec. 6, 2012 meeting, Trocchio had reported that she had hoped to get input on proposed revisions to the greenbelt program’s strategic plan at the November meeting of Preserve Washtenaw, but that meeting had been cancelled. Preserve Washtenaw is a consortium of local land preservation groups, including the Legacy Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program, and several township programs. Subsequently, GAC’s January 2013 meeting also was canceled.

On Feb. 7, Trocchio told Christian that she was still waiting for feedback. She expected to bring the strategic plan back to GAC for consideration at their March 7 meeting.

Commissioners had discussed proposed revisions to the strategic plan at their Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, but have not yet approved it. [.pdf file of draft greenbelt strategic plan]

Communications: UM Environmental Journalism Class

Commissioner Laura Rubin reported that she’d been a speaker at a recent University of Michigan class on environmental journalism, along with Craig Welch of Wexford Homes, who had been a leading opponent against the 2003 land preservation millage.

Rubin described the session as a genial one, with she and Welch sharing their perspectives in support and opposition to the greenbelt program. She noted that so much has changed since 2003, when a strong economy put pressure on local farmers to sell their land to developers.

GAC chair Dan Ezekiel asked whether Welch indicated that he’d changed his position over the years: Did Welch imply that he’d vote for a greenbelt millage now? Rubin laughed and said no, Welch didn’t imply that. But he had acknowledged that a lot has changed since then, she added, with a trend toward housing in urban centers rather than the suburbs. They had also discussed the impact that the greenbelt program had in directing the location of development.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

Commissioners spent about 30 minutes at the end of their Feb. 7 meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions, which is one of the reasons for a closed session  allowed by the Michigan Open Meetings Act . When they emerged from closed session, commissioners voted on two recommendations that will be forwarded to the city council.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of proposed greenbelt acquisitions are not made public, and parcels are identified only by their application number.

Commissioners recommended that the city council apply for grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) for two properties – application numbers 2011-13 and 2013-2.

A second resolution recommended that the city partner with the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission on the purchase of development rights for application number 2012-11, and to contribute up to 25% of the purchase price.

Outcome: Both resolutions passed unanimously without discussion.

The agenda for the Ann Arbor city council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting includes an item related to the FRPP grants. It identifies the properties as (1) another piece of the Drake farm – 72 acres along Waters Road in Lodi Township; and (2) the Carol Schumacher farm – about 100 acres along Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Archer Christian, Dan Ezekiel, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin, Christopher Taylor. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Shanon Brines.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

A vacant parcel adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area with about 0.91 acres was purchased using a $123,000 expenditure from the millage. The owners had approached the city with an offer to sell. The fair market value of the land was determined to be $110,000, with the additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence. An environmental site assessment will be completed before closing. [.jpg image of parcel map]

A second, much larger property totaling around 124 acres was also added to the greenbelt through a purchase of development rights – the Donald Drake farm in Lodi Township. The expenditure from millage funds amounts to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 will go to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land was $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

Part of the property is currently being farmed. So the city applied for USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grant funds in March 2012 to acquire development rights, but did not receive funds for this property. The strategy recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission is now to consider the farm as two parts – a northern and southern part. The GAC recommendation is to acquire development rights on the southern portion of the farm now, but to re-apply for FRPP funds in 2013 for the northern part of the farm.

The city’s 30-year 0.5 mill greenbelt tax was established by a voter referendum in 2003 for the purpose of “funding the acquisition of land for parks and the acquisition and management of land and land rights in undeveloped and developed land both within and outside the City of Ann Arbor for the purpose of preserving and protecting open space, natural habitats and the City’s Source-waters.”

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The appraised value of the property was $321,000, but the landowner made a 10% donation of $32,100, leaving a purchase price of $288,900. Of that, the city of Ann Arbor’s share was $160,500 after contributions from Salem Township and Washtenaw County of $64,200 apiece. The city incurred due diligence costs ($10,000), closing costs ($5,000) and made a contribution to the greenbelt endowment ($23,867) that brought the city’s share to $199,367.

The city’s 30-year 0.5 mill greenbelt tax was established by a voter referendum in 2003 for the purpose of “funding the acquisition of land for parks and the acquisition and management of land and land rights in undeveloped and developed land both within and outside the City of Ann Arbor for the purpose of preserving and protecting open space, natural habitats and the City’s Source-waters.”

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Greenbelt advisory commissioners Liz Rother and Mike Garfield. The June 7 meeting was the last one for Garfield, whose term is ending this month. He is director of the Ecology Center, a nonprofit based in Ann Arbor. (Photos by the writer.)

The county parks and recreation commission is moving toward a decision on the first farm properties to include in its land preservation program. It has about $1.6 million to work with, using a portion of proceeds from the countywide natural area preservation millage, which was renewed by voters in November of 2010. That 10-year, 0.25-mill tax also funds the county’s acquisition of natural areas and land preserves.

Susan Lackey, executive director of the Legacy Land Conservancy, briefed the greenbelt commissioners on the first round of deals. The Ann Arbor-based nonprofit is under contract to help manage the county program. Out of 57 applications, seven properties are moving forward for appraisals and final consideration, potentially covering 1,100 acres.

Though the county’s efforts at protecting farmland are relatively new, the greenbelt program has focused on farmland preservation since Ann Arbor voters approved a 30-year 0.5 mill tax in 2003. Lackey described the county’s efforts as complementary to the greenbelt program, noting that there’s more work to be done than any single entity can do.

Later in the meeting – during an discussion about efforts to update the greenbelt program’s strategic plan – Mike Garfield suggested that it might be time to shift more of the greenbelt’s efforts to natural areas or recreational projects like the Border-to-Border trail or RiverUp, and scale back the amount of farmland preservation.

One difficulty in this shift relates to matching funds. Ginny Trocchio, who serves as support staff for the greenbelt program, told commissioners that while the greenbelt has been very successful in securing grants through the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Preservation Program (FRPP), there are far fewer options for non-farmland properties. Partnerships with other local entities, like the county parks and recreation department, is one of the main ways that non-farmland land preservation dollars can be leveraged.

Another general challenge for all types of land preservation was cited by Lackey: A mild resurgence of development pressure as the economy improves, which is starting to drive up land values. She urged all groups to get as much preservation work done as possible in the next three to five years.

This month’s meeting was the last one for Garfield, who was instrumental in helping pass the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage, which funds the greenbelt program. He is term-limited. His potential replacement, Archer Christian, was introduced at the meeting. She is development director at the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center, where Garfield serves as director.

At the end of the meeting, commissioners held a closed session to discuss potential land acquisitions. When they emerged, they voted unanimously to recommend action by city council on the purchase of development rights for four parcels within the greenbelt boundaries, if FRPP grants can be secured.

Washtenaw County Farmland Protection

Susan Lackey, executive director of the Legacy Land Conservancy, updated GAC on farmland preservation efforts of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. WCPARC has contracted with the conservancy to manage this relatively new program. Her update was similar to one she gave to the county board of commissioners in April.

A countywide 10-year, 0.25-mill tax first was approved by voters in 2000 for natural areas preservation. The millage brings in about $3 million annually, and over the years the county has acquired more than 2,200 acres of land and established 17 new nature preserves, which are open to the public. However, as it was originally approved, millage proceeds could not be used for the purchase of development rights, a common way to protect farmland from being sold for development.

But in May of 2010, county commissioners approved a change in the ordinance governing the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP), in preparation for a renewal millage later that year. The change reflected two broad strategic goals: (1) incorporating farmland into NAPP’s land preservation efforts, and (2) clarifying the county’s use of the purchase of development rights (PDR) to preserve land, in addition to outright acquisition. [The county has a separate ordinance, passed in 2007, for a PDR program aimed at securing grants from the Michigan Agricultural Preservation Fund. The Legacy Land Conservancy helps oversee that program too.]

Using PDR to preserve farmland is seen to have several advantages: (1) it allows the land to continue to be actively used as farmland, by the owner or others; (2) it keeps the property on the tax rolls; and (3) it enables the county or other entities to tap federal grants through the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Preservation Program (FRPP). Washtenaw County is the most successful county in the state at bringing in FRPP dollars for land preservation, through the Ann Arbor greenbelt and other programs.

The county’s Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Committee (ALPAC) was designated as the group that would advise the county about farmland PDR deals. It’s a counterpart to the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee, which advises the NAPP program. Legacy Land Conservancy was hired to advise ALPAC in making its recommendations to the county parks and recreation commission, which makes the final decision about spending the natural area millage proceeds.

Sue Lackey, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Legacy Land Conservancy.

The county’s ordinance revisions also added language stating that 75% of purchases would be natural areas and 25% agricultural development rights. Lackey noted that this reflected the reality of the county’s NAPP land acquisitions – active farmland was purchased in the past, because the parcels also included natural areas that the county felt were important to protect. However, that land then came off the tax rolls, and was difficult to manage. The county had to find a farmer to farm the land, or convert it to another use. Those issues would not be a factor if the county simply purchased development rights to farmland.

In November 2010, the county’s natural area preservation millage passed with 57.4% of the vote.

About $1.6 million in funds are available for farmland preservation so far – that represents about $800,000 annually, for two years of funding. If there were no leverage of those funds, that amount would be sufficient to do PDRs on about 450-500 acres, she said. However, the goal is to partner with other entities for additional funding. That might include landowners willing to donate part of their development rights, local partners like the city of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, the state of Michigan, or the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

Criteria used to evaluate farmland parcels for selection include: (1) the characteristics of the farmland, such as the type of soil and the amount of land currently being farmed; (2) the likelihood of development pressure on the property, such as proximity to existing and proposed public sewer and water service; (3) the ability to leverage funds from other partners; and (4) other open space and natural features criteria, as established in the NAPP ordinance:

A. Natural Areas

• Public Water Resources: property with water resources frontage; property located in a headwaters area important to protect water quality; property which overlies a groundwater recharge area that supports a public water supply; or, property which includes wetlands.
• Special Plants, Animals and Plant Communities: property which supports wildlife populations or habitat or adds to already protected property/ies which would protect wildlife populations or habitat; property which has plant species listed by the State of Michigan as “Endangered,” “Threatened,” or “Special Concern,” and/or unique vegetative communities.
• Recreation and Scientific Values: property, which provides public access to public waters or trails or protects a trail corridor; or, property, which is a well-documented site of scientific study.
• Proximity to Protected Land: property, which abuts or is otherwise integral to a permanently protected tract of public or private land being held for conservation or recreation purposes.

One “on/off” button for potential preservation is whether a local government’s master plan calls for development in the area where a property is located, Lackey said. If an area is slated for development through zoning or a master plan, then the county won’t seek to preserve it, she said, because “we believe that local government policy has power and we should recognize that.” [.pdf of scoring and evaluation criteria]

Ultimately, applications were received for 57 parcels covering about 5,600 acres located throughout the county, Lackey said, including many within the greenbelt boundaries. Applications came from landowners in Webster Township (10), and Freedom, Lima and Lodi townships (6 each). Other landowners submitted applications for parcels in the townships of Scio (4), Salem (4), York (4), Northfield (3), Dexter (3), Bridgewater (2), and one each from Lyndon, Sylvan, Pittsfield, Manchester, Superior and Saline townships. [This breakdown reflects the number of landowners – and some landowners submitted applications for multiple parcels.]

ALPAC made a recommendation to the county parks and recreation commission in February 2012 to move ahead with seven priority parcels, Lackey said, located in the townships of Webster, Salem, Dexter, Lima, Superior and York. The properties cover 1,100 acres, and all but one are located within a mile or less of other protected land. That’s important, she said, because it helps build strong farming communities. And when combined with other protected natural and open space areas, the farmland becomes part of a wildlife habitat corridor as well, she said.

Next steps include officially notifying the township governments where these parcels are located. Appraisals on the properties will be done, and that will indicate how many deals can actually move ahead. The appraisals will likely result in very different valuations than would have been made even five years ago, Lackey said, because of a decline in property values.

Additional due diligence and the development of preliminary terms for conservation easements will be needed before final recommendations are made to the parks and rec commission, Lackey said. She hoped that at least some of the deals occur this year, but noted that the process usually takes longer than anyone expects.

The expectation is to start scoring properties after Labor Day for a second round of deals.

Lackey concluded by introducing Robin Burke, the conservancy’s new land protection coordinator.

Washtenaw County Farmland Protection: Commission Discussion

Mike Garfield began the discussion by commenting that the early returns on this effort sound terrific. He wondered whether the county’s program would be able to reach its goal of protecting 1,100 acres.

Lackey replied that she thinks the money is there to do it. The big question is appraisals, she added, “as it is for everybody.” In discussions with landowners, she said she was clear as possible about the potential land values. In many areas, there aren’t nearby comparables for the purchase of development rights. It all depends on how comfortable landowners will be with the offered price, she said.

Garfield noted that Lackey had mentioned an on/off switch for selecting properties to protect. Where there any other on/off switches? he asked. Lackey indicated that if land is already protected, it wouldn’t be a priority. Another “off” switch would be if there’s contamination on the site.

Garfield asked whether matching funds are a requirement for the program. No, Lackey said, but it’s one factor in a property’s scoring criteria. It’s not an on/off button, but it would be difficult to complete a deal unless there were other funds that could be leveraged. Otherwise, it would need to be a very special property. Garfield pointed out that this is a point of distinction between the county’s program and the greenbelt, which does require some kind of matching funds.

Peter Allen said he’d always been under the impression that there wasn’t much overlap between the greenbelt and the county’s programs, but he’s amazed to see that there is. In a big picture view, where do the programs compete or cooperate?

Lackey described the programs as more complementary than competitive. There have been several parcels that Ginny Trocchio – who is support staff for the greenbelt program – has alerted the county about, and vice versa. There’s more preservation work to be done than any single entity can do, Lackey said. The driving force behind all of their work is what’s best for the farmland and how can it best be protected. That’s true for the natural areas in the county too, she said.

Allen asked if there are ever any fee simple purchases – that is, outright acquisition of property in which the title would be held by the county. Not for farmland protection, Lackey said. However, there are fee simple purchases through the county’s natural areas preservation program, which is overseen by the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC).

Catherine Riseng reported that she also serves on NATAC, and had been curious about ALPAC’s work. Recently, NATAC has discussed the issue of setting aside more funds for stewardship. She wondered if that was an issue for the farmland program too. [For background on the stewardship issue, see Chronicle coverage: "County Parks: Stewardship Fund an Option?"]

Yes, Lackey said. In fact, she would be going to the county board of commissioners later that night to discuss a possible ordinance change that would allow for more millage money to be set aside for stewardship. If there’s a restricted fund for stewardship, you could easily contract out that work to monitor properties with respect to easement enforcement. The stewardship issue for preserves is a bigger concern, she noted. If the millage isn’t renewed in the future, are there adequate funds for managing those properties?

Lackey clarified for Riseng that currently 7% of millage funds are set aside for stewardship of both natural areas preservation and farmland preservation. [The proposed ordinance change, if approved, would allow for up to 25% of funds to be set aside for stewardship.]

Tom Bloomer wanted to know how flexible the county would be in allowing public access on the farmland it protects. That’s a discussion that ALPAC has had, Lackey replied. The ordinance stipulates that an educational event can be held not more than one time a year – something like a hike or a farming demonstration. It’s very limited, she said. In reality, as more easement deals are completed, such events will likely default to just the farmers who are interested in holding them, she said. There’s no contemplation of putting in parking lots or trails, or having a “y’all come down, folks” attitude, she added.

Bloomer ventured that it doesn’t sound like providing this access has been a stumbling block. That’s right, Lackey said. In fact, a couple of landowners are excited about the idea. Others just aren’t sure if anyone would be interested in seeing what’s on their property. But there’s been no pushback at all, she said. Of course, the devil will be in the details as the easements get finalized, Lackey added. But she felt that the easements would honor the spirit and certainly the letter of the county’s policy, as well as honoring the farm owners with respect to access to their land.

Dan Ezekiel clarified with Lackey that the county parks & recreation commission holds the easements, just as it holds the title for the natural area preserves that it purchases. He asked whether there had been any discussion about having an entity like the Legacy Land Conservancy hold a secondary easement.

Lackey said the county’s attorney has some concerns about that. The issue is that if another entity is given an easement, the county would be giving away value that it had purchased with public dollars.

Ezekiel observed that Lackey has considerable experience and knowledge about land preservation. He asked her to look into her crystal ball and identify strategic issues that might be emerging in the next three to five years.

Saying she hesitated to do that, Lackey did offer some observations. She expects the area will see a mild resurgence of development pressure, which will likely affect land within the greenbelt boundaries more than in the outlying rural parts of the county. She has heard there are some new proposals for residential subdivisions, which hasn’t been the case in recent years. The development pressure will probably happen more quickly than any of them expect, she added. That was true of South State Road in Pittsfield Township, which was undeveloped when she arrived to this area in the mid-1990s, and now is almost fully developed.

With development comes price pressure, Lackey said. So the challenge will be to do as much work as possible in the next three to five years – getting appraisals that are healthy enough for landowners, but not so high that land preservation programs wouldn’t be able to afford it. Unlike the greenbelt program, the county’s land preservation efforts don’t have the luxury of bonding, Lackey noted. So their work is based on the annual revenues brought in from the millage.

The other issue that Lackey raised was the area’s robust local food community, which tends to involve small farms. She said she’s still trying to puzzle through whether conservation easements are helpful to owners of small farms, or if such easements are more hassle than they’re worth. Conservation has a role to play, but it’s not clear what that role might be. Farming is more profitable now than it’s been in recent decades, she said, so that should encourage more farmers to stay in the county.

However, the average age of a farmer is 59, she noted. No matter what the development market does, farmers are aging. The concern is how to transfer farmland from one generation to another. Lackey cited the Girbach/Frederick farm as a good example of a successful transfer. [The greenbelt program and Legacy Land Conservancy were partners in purchasing development rights to the Lodi Township farm, which allowed the owners to sell the property at an accessible price to Mike Vestergaard. See Chronicle coverage: "Frederick Farm in Line to Join Greenbelt."]

Lackey said she’s struck by the interesting dynamic – operating the farm as a business, yet at the same time protecting the farmland.

Ezekiel asked Lackey to share her experiences in protecting conservation easements against encroachments or incursions. To date, Lackey said, that hasn’t been a big issue. Most situations have been accidental, she said. [The issue has arisen recently for an easement held by Webster and Scio townships on property owned by the Dexter Area Historical Society. See Chronicle coverage: "Webster Gives Ground for Civil War Days."]

Lackey identified two issues related to easement enforcement. First, land is starting to change ownership, as the owners that signed the original easement sell their property. So far, she said, the successor landowners have been great in abiding by terms of the easements. The second issue relates to terms of the easements. When the first easements were done in the early 1990s, they didn’t include a lot of terms that are standard today – like the issue of third-party enforcement. In newer easements, that third-party enforcement is standard, she said.

Possible New Commissioner

Following Susan Lackey’s presentation, Dan Ezekiel asked Mike Garfield to introduce a guest who was attending the meeting. Garfield, who is term-limited and was serving his last meeting as a greenbelt commissioner, introduced Archer Christian, saying that she’s interested in having her name put forward as his replacement. Garfield is director of the Ecology Center, a nonprofit based in Ann Arbor. Christian is the group’s development director.

Archer Christian is development director for the Ecology Center, and is applying to replace Mike Garfield on the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. Garfield is the Ecology Center's director.

Garfield said she’d make a wonderful addition to the commission.

Christian spoke briefly to commissioners, saying that as long as she can remember, she’s wanted to be a farmer. Being able to translate that passion into helping preserve land in the greenbelt would be an honor. She gave a brief overview of her background, including the fact that she started at the Ecology Center four years ago as grants director, and became development director in January of 2012. [.pdf of Christian's résumé]

Christian told commissioners that she’s lived in Ann Arbor for eight and a half years, and it feels like home. Being in a forward-thinking community is a delight beyond measure.

Ezekiel indicated that he believed her nomination was in process. For most city commissions, members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council. However, greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council. Carsten Hohnke, the city council representative on GAC, was expected to put forward the nomination. He did not attend the commission’s June 7 meeting.

A resolution to appoint Christian is on the June 18 Ann Arbor city council agenda. It is likely to be postponed, because such nominations are typically put forward as an item of communication, followed by a vote at the subsequent council meeting. A similar situation occurred with a recent resolution to reappoint greenbelt commissioners Peter Allen and Catherine Riseng.

If appointed, Christian’s term would run through July 1, 2015. She would fill a slot set aside for someone who represents an environmental/conservation organization.

Greenbelt Strategic Plan

At its May 2012 meeting, the commission formed a subcommittee to work on updating a strategic plan for the greenbelt program. The subcommittee consists of Peter Allen, Laura Rubin and Shannon Brines.

The first strategic plan was adopted in 2005, and updated in 2009 to reflect changing economic conditions and the growing local food movement. [.pdf of 2009 updated Ann Arbor greenbelt district strategic plan]

During her staff report, Ginny Trocchio – a staff member of The Conservation Fund, a nonprofit that’s under contract with the city to manage the greenbelt program – updated commissioners on the effort. [.pdf of subcommittee notes] The subcommittee has met for the first time and reviewed maps to see what the greenbelt program has already accomplished. Several townships have updated their master plans in the past three to five years, so the subcommittee looked at overlays of those plans as they relate to land preservation.

The general consensus is that the strategic plan needs some tweaks, Trocchio said, but not major revisions. She hoped the subcommittee can bring recommendations to GAC’s August meeting.

Rubin noted that part of the subcommittee’s discussion had involved trends in terms of matching funds that are available for the greenbelt properties. The greatest unknown is the future of funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). That could be a huge change, she said – or not.

Trocchio reported that when the greenbelt program first launched, the initial deals included about 20-30% of funding from outside sources. Now, the deals average around 50% in funds from partners or FRPP. Land prices have also dropped significantly since the greenbelt program was formed, she said – from around $16,000/acre in 2005 to about $4,000/acre now. So the city’s cost per acre to preserve land in the greenbelt went from around $11,000 to $2,000 or $3,000.

Trocchio also noted that the program is coming close to spending down its fund balance. [To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being paid back with revenue from the 30-year, 0.5 mill open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003. Part of that fund balance is used for parkland acquisition within the city. About $6 million remains for the greenbelt program.]

When the fund balance is spent, then the city will only have enough revenue to do about one or two deals per year, Trocchio said. If land prices go up, even fewer deals would be possible.

Mike Garfield suggested that it might be time to consider more of an emphasis on natural areas, as opposed to farmland. It makes sense to look at recreational projects like the Border-to-Border trail or RiverUp, he said. Garfield added that he wasn’t saying they should stop doing farmland preservation, but there might be some other strategic projects that the greenbelt program could be part of.

Peter Allen said there was clear consensus among subcommittee members that overlaying the greenbelt program with the watershed, food shed and “recreational shed” would be a good strategy.

Rubin noted that the subcommittee also discussed the struggle of protecting property when they can’t find a partner. The city doesn’t want to own land that it has to manage, she said. One strategy might be to look for non-traditional partners, like parks and recreation departments. Garfield added that the greenbelt program wasn’t originally conceived that way – it was thought of as protecting farmland. So it might take some reaching out to find partners for recreational land.

Trocchio pointed out that one of the problems for deals related to non-farmland properties is that there’s nothing equivalent to the FRPP. Ezekiel said he understood the point, but he also ventured that a fair number of non-farmland deals had fallen through because the landowner had decided not to proceed. It had been frustrating, he said, adding that he agreed the greenbelt should have a healthy mix of property types. He pointed to the recent preservation of the Pellerito property in Superior Township, in which the greenbelt had participated. It’s not because of a lack of effort, he added.

Tom Bloomer expressed caution in the precision of language related to local food. It starts out as a concept but then becomes a catch phrase and loses its true meaning, he said. The concept of local food started out as food that’s grown here, he noted. All farms in Washtenaw County are producing local food. But what the phrase has come to mean is that it’s locally consumed, Bloomer said – and there’s a difference. As the local food movement has grown, he said he’s heard people use the term who don’t know what they’re talking about. It takes on a life of its own, he said.

Ezekiel replied that the commission should take Bloomer’s words to heart, because Bloomer is a local food producer of long standing. [Bloomer owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township.]

Communications & Branding

Ginny Trocchio gave an update on work that she and commissioner Liz Rother are doing on communications and branding. Their goals are to improve outreach to residents about the greenbelt program, and to standardize communications and publications with a greenbelt brand.

Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund employee who's under contract with the city to provide staff support for the greenbelt program, shows commissioners an example of a design to help brand the program.

Trocchio listed several events and activities, including a table at the June 8 Green Fair in downtown Ann Arbor, a panel discussion planned for Nov. 7 with landowners who’ve participated in the greenbelt program, and a bus tour of greenbelt land later this year. They’ve also talked about how to develop a compelling impact report that describes the success of the greenbelt program. She passed out a report from the Gathering Waters Conservancy in Madison, Wisc., that might serve as a model.

In terms of coming up with a branding image, Trocchio noted that it’s complicated trying to come up with a design that captures what the program does. It’s a city program, but protects farmland and natural areas.

She passed out a couple of examples of designs that are being considered, developed with the help of a designer on the city staff. [greenbelt branding sign 1] [greenbelt branding sign 2] Trocchio also showed how one of the designs would look on a tri-fold table sign, which included a map and other information about the program.

Trocchio asked for reaction from commissioners about these designs.

Tom Bloomer said the map of protected properties – by the greenbelt program as well as other land preservation efforts – is important to include. Giving a visual representation is much more powerful than describing it in words, he said. Dan Ezekiel agreed, saying he liked the combination of the map and the graphic.

Peter Allen also liked the map, but thought that the graphical representation of Ann Arbor was “a little too high-risey.” He also suggested that the watershed, food shed and natural resources need to be symbolized somehow. The map is critical, but the other images need work, he said.

Rother described it as very much a work in progress. The image has to be something you can recognize quickly as representing the greenbelt, as you bike or drive past the sign, she said.

Laura Rubin noted that there have been signs developed in the past with a logo – is the idea to go back and change those? [A prototype of a Preserve Washtenaw sign had first been presented at GAC's December 2009 meeting.] Trocchio said the idea was that all land preservation groups in the county would use them, but they haven’t, she said. A few properties – including Bloomer’s farm – are using those signs now, but not many.

Rubin noted that one key difference is that the old signs say Preserve Washtenaw and could be used by any land preservation group in that consortium. The new signs would just be for the Ann Arbor greenbelt.

Mike Garfield said it’s terrific that this is moving forward – it’s much needed, he said. The actual image isn’t as important as where the signs are located and how they’re displayed, he said. Garfield added that he personally would prefer something that promoted Preserve Washtenaw, to include all programs. But he encouraged Trocchio and Rother to move forward and come up with the best design possible “and we’ll go from there.”

Trocchio agreed that finding a way to indicate collaboration among the various programs is important.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

Commissioners spent the last 30 minutes of their two-hour meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions, which is one of the reasons provided by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session. When they emerged from closed session, commissioners voted to recommend action by the city council on four parcels.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of proposed greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – but parcels are identified by their application number. Commissioners recommended that the city council proceed with the purchase development rights (PDR) on parcels with the application numbers of 2005-01, 2011-11, 2011-12, and 2011-13 if grants are received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

Mike Garfield made the motion, noting that it was his last chance to do so. GAC chair Dan Ezekiel commented, “Well, Mr. Garfield, you’re going out on a note you came in on, because what fine applications they are.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended that the city council pursue these greenbelt deals.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Shannon Brines, Carsten Hohnke.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

A corncrib at the Staebler Farm in Superior Township. The farm isn't yet open to the public, but plans are underway to develop the site for educational and recreational use. (Photos by the writer.)

The parks and recreation commission bought the farm in 2001 and set aside more than $2 million to develop it for eventual educational and recreational uses. Possibilities include children’s gardens, a farm market, fishing, and demonstrations of farm activities.

Donald Staebler, who turns 102 in August, has lived there since he was two and has a life lease to stay in the 140-year-old farmhouse. The property is not yet open to the public.

At the June 12 meeting, commissioners heard from a consultant who described the use of similar property in three other communities: Ambler Farm in Wilton, Connecticut; the Intervale Center in Burlington, Vermont; and Luscher Farm in Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Commissioners discussed possible uses for the land, and decided on the next steps in creating a master plan for the farm. Dan Smith, a WCPARC member who also serves on the county board of commissioners, noted that this project fits with other efforts supported by the board, including community gardens on the former juvenile detention center site and the Washtenaw Food Policy Council that was created earlier this year.

In addition to their discussion of Staebler Farm, the commission carried out its usual business of approving expenses, reviewing the budget, and getting updates on its parks, recreation facilities and natural areas. Among those updates was a report that a design team for a proposed WCPARC recreation center in Ypsilanti held its first meeting to review a possible schematic design. The team consists of faculty and students from the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. [For more details on this project, see Chronicle coverage: "More Planning for Rec Center in Ypsilanti."]

Staebler Farm

Coy  Vaughn, WCPARC’s deputy director, began his briefing on Staebler Farm with background about the property. The farm has been in operation since before 1880, and the Staebler family bought it in 1912. In 2001, WCPARC purchased it from Donald Staebler, who still resides in the 140-year old farmhouse with a life-lease. He is over 100 years old, which Vaughn said is “evidence of the healthiness of living the life of a farmer.” [Staebler was honored by the county board of commissioners in August of 2010 for his contributions to the community. His land was known as “Crick-in-th’-Back Farm.”]

Site map of Staebler Farm, provided in the packet of materials for the June 12 WCPARC meeting.

Vaughn showed slides depicting the farm, which is bisected by Plymouth Road and lies just east of Prospect Road. The farmhouse is south of Plymouth, and most of the land south of the farmhouse is planted in hay, with a row of trees dividing that into two fields. South of the fields lies a “nice hardwood swamp on the south edge of the property, with a hardwood stand on the south east corner,” Vaughn said.

The property is adjacent to both Frain Lake, at the southwest corner, and Murray Lake, on the southeast corner, although neither lake is part of the farm.

A local farmer still farms the site and has run between 12 and 24 head of cattle and sheep on the land north of Plymouth Road, which Fleming Creek traverses. Vaughn noted that “these animals do what animals do, and it isn’t good for the creek,” so the animals are being phased out, he said. This part of the farm contains a large stand of mature trees. Vaughn said that the presence of the animals results in the ground “looking almost as if we had groomed it. It would be a great place for a pavilion.”

This section north of Plymouth also contains two large ponds, originally borrow pits for the construction of M-14, which is on the north side of the property. The ponds – north of but not connected to Fleming Creek – are now clear and deep, Vaughn asserted, and have a good stock of fish.

The land north of Plymouth Road includes a barn, a corncrib, and other outbuildings. WCPARC has helped to restore these buildings – the oldest dates to 1880 – and several pieces of antique farm equipment, which Staebler has given to WCPARC.

Staebler Farm: Development Objectives

Vaughn said that WCPARC’s general goal is to develop the farm into a year-round park, to respect the farm’s character, to provide recreational opportunities, and to develop educational, ecological, and social functions at a reasonable cost. As he put it, to “celebrate 110-plus years of agricultural tradition, take advantage of the site’s proximity to Ann Arbor, northeastern Washtenaw, and western Wayne County, utilize its many natural features such as woods and water, to preserve its biological and hydrological qualities, and to complement other park facilities.”

He also listed developing revenue-generating activities, and involving all stakeholders in a meaningful way, as additional objectives. He pointed out how visible the farm is from M-14, and that any change in the “farm with ponds” quality of the vista would be noticed by the many who commute daily on that road, as well as on Plymouth Road.

Vaughn gave more details about the major possibilities, none of which have been determined but all of which – along with new ideas sure to be generated at the current meeting and in future discussions – will be considered.

• Recreational opportunities: activities related to farming such as crops, gardens, a small orchard, hoop house, pumpkins, bee hives, a sugar shack. “This will not be a theme park,” he said several times.
• Food production and distribution: perhaps home to a farm market, or a CSA [community supported agriculture], a food co-op, and a value-added kitchen.
• Educational purposes: teaching children and adults about farming, gardening, caring for animals, learning about farm history, perhaps a museum. The idea is to celebrate the agricultural heritage of Washtenaw County, with an emphasis on the history and evolution of agricultural practices and current trends in sustainable farming.
• Special events: demonstrations of shearing and shoeing, special exhibits.
• Park amenities: picnic spots, perhaps a pavilion, possibly a banquet hall. There might be sports like fishing, but it’s much less likely that active sports will be allowed. Other amenities will include parking and accommodation to public access and circulation.
• Water resources: Fishing piers, boardwalk to swamp and lakes, and an effort to protect and improve Fleming Creek.

Vaughn then gave a long list of potential partners, with commission members jumping in to add more: 4-H, the Peoples Food Coop, the Fair Food Network, Food Gatherers, Growing Hope, Project Grow, the MSU Extension Service, residents and officials from Superior Township and neighboring townships, neighboring property owners, public schools, Eastern Michigan University’s Historic Preservation program, antique tractor clubs, and local farmers.

Staebler Farm: Case Studies

Vaughn then introduced Rebecca Bloomfield, describing her as a consultant who will help WCPARC staff develop the active farming component of the master plan for the Staebler Farm Park, so that it can contribute to the local food supply without any detrimental consequences to other farmers or food producers or distributors.

Rebecca Bloomfield, a consultant working on the Staebler Farm project, gave a report at the June 12 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission.

[Commission members had received a copy of Bloomfield’s resume, which shows her to hold a certificate in organic farming from Michigan State University in 2009, and a B.A. in international development from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. In 2010-2011 she was first an assistant instructor and then a training program manager in MSU’s organic farmer training program. She has also held garden training positions at The Edible Schoolyard in Berkeley, Calif. and the American Jewish World Service,  and served as an intern or volunteer at farms and cooperatives in Italy and Ontario.]

Bloomfield said she used three case studies to compare Staebler to similar farms around the country. In addition to the case studies, Bloomfield said she would provide WCPARC with a five- year timeline, a draft memorandum of understanding that could be used with partners, and additional recommendations, including budgets.

Staebler Farm: Case Studies – Ambler Farm

Ambler Farm in Wilton, Conn. has 22 acres, only one of which is in production, because much of the land is wooded or otherwise not usable. Ambler has an educational program. The town of Wilton bought the 200-year-old farm in 1999. They want to expand production beyond 1 acre within the tillable land.

The organization developed its plan first as a steering committee in 2000, and then evolved into Friends of Ambler Farm in 2005. By 2006 they had a five-year business plan and hired a program manager in 2007 and a farmer in 2008. Now Ambler has three staff members: a full-time director of agriculture, a part-time program manager, and a part-time financial assistant.

Ambler sells produce, Bloomfield said, at an off-site farm market and their onsite market. The community is very involved with educational programming, community events, and agricultural programming. The site is open to the public, has summer camps for kids, and educational programs for adults throughout the year. A  few sheep and chickens serve as educational tools, she said.

Bloomfield presented an overview of Ambler’s finances:

A summary of finances for Ambler Farm.

Bloomfield concluded by summarizing this advice from Ambler: Get the neighbors on your side (they had to get zoning changes approved); break ground as soon as possible; and involve someone in the school system.

Staebler Farm: Case Studies – Intervale Center

The second case study that Bloomfield presented was for the Intervale Center in Burlington, Vermont. According to the center’s website, the “intervale” is 700 acres of bottomland within the city limits of Burlington. Bloomfield said the Intervale Center covers 350 of those 700 acres. The center’s purpose is to improve the viability of small farms, provide sustainable use of land, and connect the community to its food system. Intervale is also home to a conservation nursery, a food hub, a community farm, and other sustainable agriculture programs and organizations.

Bloomfield reviewed the history of Intervale: In 1986, Will Raap moved his Gardeners Supply Co. to the intervale and led a cleanup effort there. The area had been badly flooded in the 1920s and housed a municipal dump and a pig farm in succeeding decades. In 1987, Burlington rezoned the area to exclude residential and industrial growth. In 1988, Gardeners Supply Co. founded the Intervale Foundation, and in 1989 the Intervale Community Farm CSA began – the first CSA in Vermont. In 1990, an incubator farm program was established.

[By way of explanation, CSA stands for “community supported agriculture.” It provides a way for consumers to buy fresh, seasonal food directly from farmers. Here are the basics: a farmer offers a certain number of "shares" to the public. Typically the share consists of a box of vegetables, but other farm products may be included. Interested consumers purchase a share (aka a "membership" or a "subscription") and in return receive a box (or a bag or basket) of seasonal produce each week throughout the farming season. The advantages for farmers and consumers, and more information, are provided on the LocalHarvest website. A searchable database of Washtenaw County CSAs is available here.]

The Intervale Center’s programs include:

• A program to incubate farms.
• A “success on the farm” program to provide mentors to farmers to help improve their business – for example, by connecting the farmer to a lawyer, accountant, more experienced farmer, or other expert, at no cost to the farmer.
• A “food hub,” which is a new community supported agricultural program with a number of farms participating. For example, one farm provides honey, another meat, another vegetables, so that the customer gets three kinds of food from one share.

Intervale has nine full-time staff, several part-timers, and many seasonal and volunteer workers. It’s open to the public, with weekly events in the summer and an annual weekend event in the winter. Intervale rents out its facility, and markets the food it produces through CSAs, wholesale, at farmers’ markets, and through its food hubs. There are many farmers’ markets, Bloomfield said, because there are so many farms in the area.

Financial summary for the Intervale Center.

Bloomfield said Intervale identified these challenges: Meeting the demand they created (Intervale supplies 10% of Burlington’s fresh food); and a need to diversify their cash flow, which can conflict with focusing on what the center does best. Intervale’s example: They had a municipal compost facility that was their main source of income. But after an unusually rainy season, it “got them in trouble and they ended up selling it,” Bloomfield said.

Staebler Farm: Case Studies – Luscher Farm

Luscher Farm is a 100-acre property that’s owned by the city of Lake Oswego (Oregon) parks and recreation department, Bloomfield reported. The city bought 47 acres in 1991 with a life estate agreement with the former owner. In the mid 1990s, voters approved turning the land into a public park. In 2007, the  Friends of Luscher Farm was formed.

Programs there include community gardens – including a children’s garden – public events, classes, camps, and rental of facilities. There are two CSAs: one that’s run by the city, and another called 47th Avenue Farm, which a local farmer rents from Luscher. Partnerships include Oregon Tilth, which certifies organic produce, and the Rogersson Clematis Collection and botanical garden.

Staff at Luscher includes a full-time director, a part-time children’s garden coordinator, contracted labor for maintenance, and volunteers.

Financial summary for Luscher Farm.

Challenges that Bloomfield cited from this case study include retaining community support for agricultural use of the land – some people want to turn it into a sports field. However, Bloomfield said that surveys show high support from the community to keep it in agricultural use, and said the farm’s director is not concerned about that. [By way of further background, the Luscher Farm website shows the presence of two dog parks, one athletic field with a lighted ball park, and walking trails supported by a land conservancy.]

The second challenge for Luscher Farm is meeting demand for community gardens. Right now, they have a long waiting list even as they expand, Bloomfield said.

After presenting the three case studies, Bloomfield named other farms she planned to check out in the future: Common Ground Farm in Beacon, N.Y., The Food Project in Boston; and Holcomb Farm in West Granby, Conn.

Staebler Farm: Commission Discussion

Commissioner Dan Smith opened the discussion by observing that “it looks as if Luscher Farm is using the parks department to run it.” Others agreed, noting that Luscher, unlike the other two, does not have a positive financial statement.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked: “Why not just keep Staebler Farm a park?” Coy Vaughn responded that because the land has been farmed for over 100 years, there is a desire to keep it functioning that way, although the township is anxious to have the property open to the public. Sizemore pressed further: “Can’t we have animals there, maybe for the 4-H?” Vaughn repeated his earlier opinion that “we do not want a petting farm.”

Sizemore asked another question: “Are we going to mess anyone up? Who might not like this?” Vaughn responded: “We hope not to. We will take this to the township and have open meetings, and an open house at the farm to talk through the ideas.”

WCPARC chair Bob Marans added: “The primary objective here is educational. We ought to think of the [University of Michigan] as a possible partner.” That led to quick naming of other possible partners: Washtenaw Community College, the county as a whole, and the Ann Arbor Tech High School.

Commissioner Jimmie Maggard observed that he had “gone by this farm for 18-20 years – you drive by and see the most beautiful place. I’ve admired it forever and ever.” Vaughn agreed, adding that the property is highly visible. The community cares about what happens, and doesn’t want an active park there. “Leave it like it is,” said Maggard.

Smith asked whether the plan is, after Don Staebler is gone, to have a resident on the farm? Vaughn replied: “Hopefully we will restore the farmhouse and perhaps use it for resident caretaker, perhaps someone from the organic farmer training program at MSU who could be an on-site resident most of the year, depending on what most of program turns out to be.”

Staebler Farm: Next Steps

Marans asked whether staff could outline a timeline, and whether there would be a staff report. Bob Tetens, director of the county parks and recreation department, responded that staff would “continue to talk about this for the next several months, including the chance to develop CSAs and incubator farms.” Vaughn added that “the key thing Rebecca [Bloomfield] did for us was to show us the little steps needed to get going, so you can grow over the years to the size of your big vision.”

No trespassing sign at Staebler Farm.

Marans said he saw two steps: To develop a program that can be phased in over time, and to determine how to proceed with the physical infrastructure. WCPARC should strive to have a plan in place by fall, he said. Tetens quickly said that was “easily doable.” Marans confirmed that the staff is responsible to pull the plan together, meet with townships, talk to Don Staebler, and write a report for the commission.

Marans then asked Smith, who is also a member of the county board of commissioners: “Will the rest of the county board be as enthusiastic as we are?”

“Yes,” Smith responded, “I don’t know why they wouldn’t be very enthusiastic. We have been very supportive of these general types of activities. Just recently we established community gardens on the former juvenile detention center, and established the Washtenaw Food Policy Council. There are lots of different pieces that fit together.”

Sharon Sheldon of the county’s public health department – who was attending the meeting as a guest – also commented. “There is a lot of demand in this area [for locally produced food]. The more we can do to build the supply, the more we will be a solution.”

Smith then articulated what he saw as the challenge:  “To do something unique in a couple of different ways. We don’t want to duplicate what others are doing [like The Henry Ford or a petting zoo]. We don’t want to compete with what local producers are doing. We don’t want to infringe while we have an operating farm, because we are a government entity. We want to go out of our way to do something unique, such as growing heirloom tomatoes and heritage apples that might be unique but are difficult to grow. You get an educational component by showing why commercial is done one way and how we can use vegetables that don’t need those commercial qualities, like being shippable. We might focus on cooking/baking using old recipes, using produce raised on the farm.”

Smith took a breath and continued:  “Imagine setting up an Amish community to make it an active farm, if that would be possible.” He also suggested that staff “define parameters for how many people you can have there at one time and let neighbors know that, so we don’t have people parking on the shoulders [of the road].”

Commissioner Janice Anschuetz said: “This reminds me of our discussion when we decided to purchase the farm 10 years ago. Finally the page is being turned into the next chapter. The neighbors did start to object when we were going to buy it, but when they found out what we wanted to do they dropped their objection.”

“The neighbors now want to go faster than we are going,” Tetens observed. “They are pushing us.”

Financial Reports

The board reviewed two financial reports at their June 12 meeting: A claims report, and a fund balance statement.

The claims report lists expenditures for the past month for the purpose of obtaining commission approval. The expenditures fall into two broad categories: parks and recreation facilities under the jurisdiction of WCPARC, and expenditures in the natural areas preservation program.

For parks and recreation facilities, expenses totaled $951,040.83, the bulk of which was for capital improvements at the Meri Lou Muray Recreation Center and Independence Lake Park. The NAPP expenditures totaled $143,198.92, for an overall total of $1,094,239.75. [.pdf of claims report]

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the claims report.

Bob Tetens, parks and recreation director, reviewed the fund balance statement. He reported that revenues and expenditures, at this point 42% of the way through the fiscal year, are normal. The fiscal (calendar) year budget called for revenue of $9.469 million, and year-to-date revenue received is $6,368,909. The bulk of that revenue is from property taxes.

The budgeted expense total is $15,513,721, and year-to-date only $4,675,076 has been spent. WCPARC carries a $6.7 million operating reserve, and had a beginning fund balance on Jan. 1, 2012 of $20,421,471.

Tetens noted that revenue from fees and services – budgeted to bring in $3.01 million – is already $92,985 ahead of last year. Also, personnel and operating expenses are starting to pick up with the seasonal opening of Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks.

There was no discussion, and commissioners had questions only about small items.

Outcome: The commission unanimously voted to approve and file the fund balance statement.

Updates on Park Projects

Bob Tetens, parks and recreation director, briefed commissioners on a wide range of projects. [.pdf of written project update] Highlights are included in this report.

A major spray-and-play project at Independence Lake Park is progressing well, Tetens reported, and the project remains on schedule. Cleanup and fencing of the recently acquired 10 additional acres is in progress.

Rolling Hills had a grand opening dedication of its new northern parkland on Sunday, May 20. Construction documents for the water park expansion are with staff for review. On May 19, the Humane Society of Huron Valley held its 33rd annual “Walk & Wag” fundraiser at Rolling Hills. Tetens said it “turned into a real festival,” with 1,152 participants raising $196,000.

Tetens and several commission members commented on what good public relations it is for WCPARC. Participants do not have to pay admittance fees, and dogs have to be on leashes, the usual rule. Participants say “if it hadn’t been for this event, I wouldn’t know this park is here,” Tetens said, adding that the Humane Society brings hundreds of volunteers. Memorial Day was the second busiest day ever at Rolling Hills, he said, praising the fine weather all spring.

At County Farm Park and the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, a new gateway arch over the pathway entry from Washtenaw Avenue is under construction. New information kiosks are being installed at the entrances from Platt, Medford, and Washtenaw.

A review of proposals for the Ann Arbor Skatepark is complete and Wally Hollyday Skateparks has been selected for design and construction oversight. [WCPARC has pledged $400,000 in matching funds for the $1 million project, to be located at the city of Ann Arbor's Veterans Memorial Park.]

At Sharon Mills Park in Sharon Township, a pedestrian bridge adjacent to the mill pond dam will be repaired or replaced. Parker Mill Park in Ann Arbor Township will receive a new informational kiosk near the parking lot.

Updates on Park Projects: Special Initiatives

Construction continues on River Terrace Trail southeast of Dexter – part of the county’s Border-to-Border (B2B) trail. The next segment will go into Dexter. Staff continue to assist the city of Ypsilanti in extending the B2B from Riverside Park into the Water Street redevelopment area along Michigan Avenue.

Also related to the Water Street site, a design team for a WCPARC recreation center there held its first meeting to review a possible schematic design. The team consists of faculty and students from the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. [For more details on this project, see Chronicle coverage: "More Planning for Rec Center in Ypsilanti."] The design team recently took a field trip to examine a new rec center outside Grand Rapids. They are carefully considering the entire Water Street site, according to Tetens.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed a very positive impression of both the faculty and the students, saying they are “very down to earth, very interested in what is going on in town. We don’t want anything that looks like that library on Whittaker Road.” [His reference was to the relatively new building for the Ypsilanti District Library.]

Tetens said members of the team would also visit the Ann Arbor YMCA, the Washtenaw Community College Health and Fitness Center, and other locations.

Commission member Janice Anschuetz suggested they also visit the rec centers in Canton and Romulus, since many of her neighbors in Ypsilanti use those.

Outcome: The report on park projects and special initiatives was received and filed.

Recreation Report

A report of the county’s recreation facilities showed that participation is up 23% since 2010 at Rolling Hills County Park, with revenues up 27%. Bob Tetens, the county’s parks and recreation director, reported that cars are lined up to get in, and the addition of a third entrance station is being considered. So far this year, 35% of daily visitors are from outside of Washtenaw County.

At Independence Lake, attendance has also increased over previous years, though revenues are down.

The following chart summarizes changes in the number of participants and revenues at the recreation sites through May of 2012, compared to the previous two years.

Chart showing participation and revenues for Washtenaw County parks, year-to-date through May 2012 compared to the previous two years. (Compiled by Margaret Leary using data from WCPARC)

Outcome: The participation and revenue report was received and filed. No vote was required.

Awards and Special Activities

WCPARC received its third national award in 10 years, from the National Association of County Parks and Recreation Officials, for the Rolling Hills accessibility project. The award is from NACPRO’s “removing barriers initiative,” which  is “to recognize a unique program or facility that enables and encourages greater participation in parks and recreation by persons with disabilities.”

A 2011 NACPRO award went to Nelson Meade for Outstanding Public Official in honor of his 37 years of dedication to WCPARC.  The other recent awards include:

• NACPRO, 2006: Outstanding Accomplishment in the Field of Parks and Recreation. This was for the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP).
• Michigan Farm Preservation Network, 2011: Barn of the Year, for the rehabilitation of the barns at Staebler Farm.
• Michigan Recreation and Park Association, 2012: Marketing Award, Single Brochure for WCPARC’s NAPP brochure.

County parks and recreation director Bob Tetens reported on the city of Ann Arbor’s new Argo Cascades, along which a segment of the Border-to-Border trail runs. The series of one- to two-foot drop pools are “wildly popular with kayakers,” he said, as is the trail, where he observed many people riding bikes, walking, and pushing strollers. According to Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, the Argo Pond livery just ordered 60 more kayaks that they will lease, with a return on that investment expected by the end of the season. Kayaks outnumber canoes now on the river, Tetens said.

Next meeting: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 – a variation from the schedule so the commission can receive bids for the water park project, to keep that project on track to open on Memorial Day in 2014. Meetings are held at the county parks and recreation commission administrative offices, 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor. There will be no meeting in August.

Present: WCPARC commissioners Janice Anschuetz, Robert W. Marans, Jimmie Maggard, Nelson Meade, Patricia Scribner, Rolland Sizemore, and Dan Smith. WCPARC staff members Bob Tetens, Meghan Bonfiglio, and Coy Vaughn; guests Rebecca Bloomfield and Sharon Sheldon.

Absent: Janis Bobrin, Barbara Levin Bergman, Fred Veigel.

Susan Lackey, executive director of the Legacy Land Conservancy, updated commissioners about Washtenaw County's farmland preservation efforts at an April 5, 2012 working session. (Photos by the writer.)

Susan Lackey, executive director of the Legacy Land Conservancy – an Ann Arbor-based nonprofit that’s under contract to help manage the program – told commissioners that about $1.6 million is available to preserve farmland, using a portion of proceeds from the natural area preservation millage renewed by voters in November of 2010. That 10-year, 0.25-mill countywide tax also funds the acquisition of natural areas and land preserves.

Prior to 2010, the natural areas ordinance allowed for outright acquisition of land, but not for the purchase of development rights (PDR). PDR is a common mechanism for protecting farmland, letting landowners keep their property for farming but preventing – via a conservation easement – its development. In May of 2010, the county board approved an ordinance revision that incorporated farmland into the county’s natural areas preservation program and clarified the use of PDR for that purpose.

The county received 57 applications for its first round of potential deals, Lackey reported. That list has been narrowed down to seven parcels for final consideration, covering 1,100 acres. The locations of the parcels won’t be released until a final vote by the parks and rec commission. That vote will be taken when the deals are ready to close. That’s likely to happen later this year.

Yousef Rabhi was among the commissioners who praised the program, noting how it ties in with the food policy council that the county board recently created, as well as the food-related business incubator and job training program – called Seeds for Change – focused on the eastern part of the county. Rabhi serves on the Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Committee (ALPAC), which makes recommendations to the parks and rec commission about farmland deals.

The April 5 working session also included a briefing on the county’s community corrections unit. This report focuses just on the farmland preservation update.

County Farmland Preservation

By way of background, a countywide 10-year, 0.25-mill tax first was approved by voters in 2000 for natural areas preservation. The millage brings in about $3 million annually, and over the years the county has acquired more than 2,200 acres of land and established 17 new nature preserves, which are open to the public. However, millage proceeds could not be used for the purchase of development rights, a common way to protect farmland from being sold for development.

In May of 2010, a proposal was made to the county board – which commissioners ultimately approved – that changed the ordinance governing the county’s Natural Areas Preservation Program (NAPP), in preparation for a renewal millage later that year. The change reflected two broad strategic goals: (1) incorporating farmland into NAPP’s land preservation efforts, and (2) clarifying the county’s use of the purchase of development rights (PDR) to preserve land, in addition to outright acquisition. [The county has a separate ordinance, passed in 2007, for a PDR program aimed at securing grants from the Michigan Agricultural Preservation Fund. The Legacy Land Conservancy helps oversee that program too.]

At an April 2010 working session, Susan Lackey of the Legacy Land Conservancy had told commissioners that using PDR to preserve farmland had several advantages: (1) it allows the land to continue to be actively used as farmland, by the owner or others; (2) it keeps the property on the tax rolls; and (3) it enables the county to tap federal grants through the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Preservation Program (FRPP). The county is the most successful in the state at bringing in FRPP dollars for land preservation, through the Ann Arbor greenbelt and other programs.

The ordinance change added “agricultural purposes” as a definition of natural areas, and added the category of “agricultural land” in the section that defines criteria for NAPP purchases:

B. Agricultural Lands

• Characteristics of the farmland: prime and unique soils, size, percentage of property in agricultural use, scenic historic or architectural features, scenic view.
• Potential for development pressure: adjacent land uses, adjacent land use designation, amount of road frontage proximity to public sanitary sewer/water.
• Leverage: Percentage of funding from other sources, including willingness of landowner to accept a percentage of the appraised value of the development rights on the property.
• Open space value: Proximity to existing private and/or public protected land, regardless of use.

The county’s Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Committee (ALPAC) was designated as the group that would advise the county about farmland PDR deals. It’s a counterpart to the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee, which advises the NAPP program. Legacy Land Conservancy was hired to advise ALPAC in making its recommendations to the county parks and recreation commission, which makes the final decision regarding how to spend the natural area millage proceeds.

The ordinance revisions also added language stating that 75% of purchases would be natural areas and 25% agricultural development rights. At the April 2010 working session, Lackey had told the board that this reflected the reality of the county’s NAPP land acquisitions – active farmland was purchased in the past, because the parcels also included natural areas that the county felt were important to protect. However, that land then came off the tax rolls, and was difficult to manage. The county had to find a farmer to farm the land, or convert it to another use. Those issues would not be a factor if the county simply purchased development rights to farmland.

In November 2010, the county’s natural area preservation millage passed with 57.4% of the vote.

In her update at the county board’s recent April 5 working session, Lackey reported that about $1.6 million in funds are available for farmland preservation so far. If there were no leverage of those funds, that amount would be sufficient to do PDRs on about 450-500 acres, she said. However, the goal is to partner with other entities for additional funding, she said. That might include landowners willing to donate part of their development rights, local partners like the city of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, the state of Michigan, or the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

Lackey summarized the evaluation criteria that’s being used in selecting farmland parcels. [.pdf of scoring and evaluation criteria] Those criteria include (1) the characteristics of the farmland, such as the type of soil and the amount of land currently being farmed; (2) the likelihood of development pressure on the property, such as proximity to existing and proposed public sewer and water service; (3) the ability to leverage funds from other partners; and (4) other open space and natural features criteria, as established in the NAPP ordinance:

A. Natural Areas

• Public Water Resources: property with water resources frontage; property located in a headwaters area important to protect water quality; property which overlies a groundwater recharge area that supports a public water supply; or, property which includes wetlands.
• Special Plants, Animals and Plant Communities: property which supports wildlife populations or habitat or adds to already protected property/ies which would protect wildlife populations or habitat; property which has plant species listed by the State of Michigan as “Endangered,” “Threatened,” or “Special Concern,” and/or unique vegetative communities.
• Recreation and Scientific Values: property, which provides public access to public waters or trails or protects a trail corridor; or, property, which is a well-documented site of scientific study.
• Proximity to Protected Land: property, which abuts or is otherwise integral to a permanently protected tract of public or private land being held for conservation or recreation purposes.

Lackey told commissioners that for this first round of soliciting applications, it wasn’t clear what kind of response the county would get from farmers. In the fall of 2011, outreach included an educational meeting held by the Washtenaw County Farm Bureau, and a mailing sent to all active farm parcels in the county to inform owners of this program.

Ultimately, applications were received for 57 parcels covering 5,601 acres located throughout the county, Lackey said. Applications came from landowners in Webster Township (10), and Freedom, Lima and Lodi townships (6 each). Other landowners submitted applications for parcels in the townships of Scio (4), Salem (4), York (4), Northfield (3), Dexter (3), Bridgewater (2), and one each from Lyndon, Sylvan, Pittsfield, Manchester, Superior and Saline townships. [This breakdown reflects the number of landowners – some landowners submitted applications for multiple parcels.]

ALPAC made a recommendation to the county parks and recreation commission in February 2012 to move ahead with seven priority parcels, Lackey said, located in the townships of Webster, Salem, Dexter, Lima, Superior and York. The properties cover 1,100 acres and all but one are located within a mile or less of other protected land. That’s important, she said, because it helps build strong farming communities. And when combined with other protected natural and open space areas, the farmland becomes part of a wildlife habitat corridor as well, she said.

Next steps include notifying the township governments where these parcels are located. Lackey said she’s already talked with some local officials informally, and people seemed pleased. Appraisals on the properties will be done. The appraisals will likely result in very different valuations than would have been made even five years ago, she said, because of a decline in property values.

Additional due diligence and the development of preliminary terms for conservation easements will be needed before final recommendations are made to the parks and rec commission, Lackey said. She hoped that at least some of the deals occur this year, but noted that the process usually takes longer than anyone expects.

Lackey praised the members of ALPAC, saying that their in-depth knowledge of land in this county is remarkable. [ALPAC members are Julie Frost, Charlie Koenn, Joseph Luellen Jr., Yousef Rabhi, Sue Shink, Stephen Solowczuk, and Dale Weidmayer.] She said that all 57 applications would have been credible projects, which speaks to the sustainability of farming in this county – it’s an economically viable enterprise.

Lackey concluded by saying she looks forward to implementing the program over the next 10 years.

County Farmland Preservation: Board Discussion

Leah Gunn observed that “it’s been a long journey.” She recalled that the county’s land preservation efforts started in 1998, when the county board put a natural areas millage on the ballot. It had included a provision for the purchase of development rights, she noted – but the millage failed to win voter approval. [The millage had been actively opposed by a coalition that included home builders and developers, building trade unions, and farmers.] In 2000, another attempt was made that did not include a PDR component, and that was approved by voters, she said. Since then, farmers and others in the community have been educated about the benefits of PDRs, Gunn said.

County commissioner Leah Gunn talks with Bob Tetens, director of the county parks and recreation department.

Still, Gunn said county officials were a bit “antsy” when they made an ordinance change prior to putting the millage renewal on the ballot for November 2010, allowing for the purchase of development rights for farmland. She praised Lackey for the conservancy’s work with the Washtenaw County Farm Bureau and others in gaining acceptance for this approach.

Lackey noted that many people spent a lot of hours in the educational process. Gunn ventured that the “locavore” movement, with its emphasis on locally produced food, was also a factor in gaining broader acceptance of farmland preservation.

Yousef Rahbi said the farmland preservation program ties in with the food policy council that the county board recently approved, as well as the food-related business incubator and job training program – called Seeds for Change – focused on the eastern part of the county. It’s part of a broader movement, Rabhi said, that’s creating community and moving toward independence from the global food system. The farmland preservation program is great for farmers, he added, and people serving on ALPAC are excited about it.

Dan Smith began his comments by noting that he loves BLTs but dislikes store-bought tomatoes – he appreciates getting tomatoes harvested off the vine. He also proffered his view that BLTs are best with toast and Miracle Whip, a comment that elicited groans from some of his fellow commissioners. Lackey suggested trying a BLT with peanut butter.

On a more serious note, Smith asked Lackey to elaborate on the inherent conflict presented in the evaluation criteria. He pointed to a centennial farm in Northfield Township that is a productive farm property with lots of road frontage, yet it’s located between two expressways and near a new high school.

Lackey replied that a lot of time is spent talking about these issues when evaluating the applications – it’s a yin/yang push. For example, in looking at a parcel’s proximity to utilities, low scores are given if a farm is too far away from utilities, but also if it’s too close, she said. It’s not good to have a farm that’s an island surrounded by development.

Lackey also noted that master plans and zoning ordinances are examined, so that it’s clear how the farm fits into a township’s broader context. It’s a juggling act, she said, and it might well be that the decision on whether to protect a parcel isn’t right 100% of the time.

Gunn concluded the discussion by noting that before the natural areas program had been authorized in 2000, there had been some controversy on the board about who should make the final decision regarding land acquisition and preservation. Some commissioners at the time had argued that each parcel should come to the county board for approval, she said. But Gunn said she had advocated for that decision to rest with the county parks and recreation commission – an independent entity with members appointed by the county board, not elected – and her view had prevailed. That has kept the politics out of the decision-making process, she said, “and it has been successful.”

Present: Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

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]