John Ramsburgh serves on the greenbelt advisory commission’s communications committee. (Photos by the writer.)

The main discussion in open session focused on an update from GAC’s communications committee. The committee has recommended creating an internship for the city’s greenbelt program, drawing from students at the University of Michigan. John Ramsburgh, a GAC member who works for UM’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts, said that his unit could provide office space and resources for the intern.

The work would entail a range of projects, including collaboration with city GIS staff to develop driving or biking maps of greenbelt-protected properties, and drafting Twitter posts and Facebook updates that would promote the greenbelt program. After other commissioners reached consensus to support this approach, Ramsburgh said he’d post the opening with the hope of selecting an intern for the fall semester.

Also at the July 3 meeting, Ginny Trocchio – who provides staff support for the greenbelt program – told commissioners that the city had recently closed a deal to purchase development rights for about 20 acres along Zeeb Road in Webster Township. The transaction brings the total of greenbelt-protected property to a bit over 4,300 acres.

Communications Plan

John Ramsburgh gave an update on work of GAC’s communications committee. Other members are Stephanie Buttrey and Jean Cares. He reported that committee members and Ginny Trocchio, who provides staff support for GAC, met with the city’s communication liaisons to talk about creating a comprehensive communications plan and facilitating outreach for the greenbelt program.

The communications staff described various methods that can be used, including the city’s email distribution system, press advisories, and social media accounts. There’s a great opportunity for the greenbelt program to increase its media presence both through the city’s parks and recreation unit, but also through GAC’s own individual efforts, he said.

One idea is to post a position for an intern at the University of Michigan, with preference for someone in the program in the environment and communications studies, or someone who has background in social media.

The intern would do work outlined by GAC’s communications committee, including:

• Research other local groups who might have interest in the greenbelt;
• Collaborate with city GIS staff to develop driving or biking maps of greenbelt-protected properties;
• Research other farmland preservation programs across the country to see what’s working or not;
• Draft Twitter feeds and Facebook updates that could be passed along to staff;
• Develop a calendar of events of greenbelt activities;
• Help volunteer at events that can highlight GAC’s work.

Ramsburgh said the hope is to post the position through the internship website of UM’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts and perhaps fill the position in the fall. Ramsburgh had volunteered to post it, and serve as the liaison since there’s space in his unit at UM to accommodate an intern. [Ramsburgh is a development officer for LS&A.] His office could provide a place for the intern to work, and other resources.

From left: Greenbelt advisory commissioners Shannon Brines and Stephanie Buttrey. Buttrey serves on GAC’s communications committee.

Trocchio reported that Tweets and Facebook posts can be drafted in advance, then scheduled to be posted once a day or once a week. That way, people are regularly getting updates about the greenbelt, she said. “It’s just a way to really increase our presence.”

Catherine Riseng asked if this intern was envisioned as an ongoing position, or just a one-semester job. Ramsburgh replied that there’s enough work for a one-semester internship. But considering the grassroots groundswell of support within the university and student community for the kinds of things that the greenbelt program is doing, “this might be something that would become an ongoing internship,” he said. GAC could develop an ongoing relationship with UM’s School of Natural Resources & Environment, or LS&A’s program in the environment – programs where there are students who want to get involved in this kind of work.

Ramsburgh said it wouldn’t be good to set it up to have regular social media and other activity for a period, “then, all of a sudden, stop.” One of the things that the committee would like the intern to do is to compile a media list that’s unique to GAC. It would complement the city’s media list, but would include national interest groups that would like to follow what Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program is doing, he said.

So the internship would be set up to handle the research and background projects first, he said, then move slowly into other work so that they don’t set up expectations that can’t be met in an ongoing way.

Ramsburgh also cautioned that there’s no guarantee that students would apply for the internship. If that happens, GAC might want to approach other institutions in southeast Michigan, he said.

Commissioners didn’t take a formal vote, but reached consensus for Ramsburgh to proceed and post the internship for this fall.

Staff Update

Ginny Trocchio gave a brief update, noting that the city had recently closed on the acquisition of about 20 acres on Zeeb Road, north of Joy Road. It’s now part of a block of land that’s been previously protected with greenbelt funds, and brings the total of greenbelt-protected property to just over 4,300 acres.

GAC member Archer Christian.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council – at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting – had approved the purchase of development rights for the Jane Sheldon and Robert Wolf property in Webster Township. The approval had been for an amount not to exceed $82,067 using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. That amount included $43,200 toward the purchase price of $47,500.

The city also paid for due diligence and closing costs, and $23,867 toward an endowment for potential future legal and enforcement expenses. Webster Township contributed $2,000 toward the purchase. Other funds included $2,300 from a contribution that Cherry Republic made to the city.

GAC had recommended the deal at its May 2, 2013 meeting.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session.

On July 3, commissioners met in a closed session that lasted about 30 minutes.

When they emerged, they did not take any votes related to land acquisition.

Next scheduled meeting: Thursday, Aug. 14, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] The meetings are open to the public and include two opportunities for public commentary.

Present: Peter Allen, Shannon Brines, Stephanie Buttrey, Archer Christian, Jennifer Fike, John Ramsburgh, Catherine Riseng (chair), Christopher Taylor. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Jean Cares.

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.

The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt millage, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt deal voted on by the Ann Arbor council is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Kris Olsson, a watershed ecologist with the Huron River Watershed Council, at the Feb. 6, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

The aim of the project is to map, prioritize and encourage protection of the remaining natural areas in the Huron River watershed. The entire watershed covers about 994,000 acres. Of that about 247,000 acres are in the bioreserve. More than 1,700 sites have been mapped as potential natural areas.

The Ann Arbor greenbelt program is one of several partners in the project. Olsson told commissioners that the HRWC hopes this data is used to help land preservation programs like the greenbelt make informed decisions about how to protect natural areas.

Also during the Feb. 6 meeting, Ginny Trocchio – who provides staff support for the greenbelt program – briefed commissioners on the screening and scoring criteria used to review potential acquisitions for the greenbelt program. She reviewed characteristics that result in higher scores for property. For example, sites that receive higher scores have 3-4 natural features (stream corridors, woodlots or rare species), are located within 1 mile of the Ann Arbor city limits, and are located within a township or village that has passed a purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) ordinance.

Trocchio also reported that work on the greenbelt program’s new landowner registry is continuing.

The 90-minute meeting included a closed session lasting about 30 minutes. No votes were taken on potential land deals after commissioners emerged from closed session.

Bioreserve Project

Kris Olsson, a watershed ecologist with the Huron River Watershed Council, gave a special presentation to GAC about the HRWC’s bioreserve project. In introducing Olsson, GAC chair Catherine Riseng noted that they both also serve on the Washtenaw County natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), which helps oversee the county’s natural areas preservation program.

Olsson began by giving an overview of HRWC. It’s a membership organization, which includes individuals and entities like the city of Ann Arbor. [GAC member Jennifer Fike is HRWC's finance manager.] The nonprofit was started as a council of governments in 1965 under state legislation designed to protect the Huron River and its tributaries, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. She encouraged commissioners to look at HRWC’s website for a full description of its projects, programs and services.

Detail of a Huron River Watershed Council bioreserve map, indicating areas of high priority (blue), medium priority (green) and low priority (yellow). Image links to .pdf file of complete map.

One of those projects is the bioreserve. The city’s greenbelt program is one of several partners in the bioreserve project, Olsson explained, along with all of the land conservancies in the watershed, the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, and other groups. The aim of the project is to map, prioritize and encourage protection of the remaining natural areas in the Huron River watershed. For this purpose, HRWC looked at properties larger than 10 acres, including forest, wetlands and grasslands. This type of land is sometimes referred to as a region’s “green” infrastructure,” she noted.

Olsson reviewed the list of benefits that natural areas provide to the watershed, including help in cooling and filtering runoff, providing a water supply, controlling erosion, managing stormwater and regulating climate. The Huron River is the cleanest urban river in southeast Michigan, she noted, and that’s because there’s still a fair amount of natural area in the watershed. “The more natural areas we have, the better,” Olsson said.

Over the years, watersheds in general have become more developed. As of 2000, 43% of the land in the Huron River watershed was open space, 26% was agricultural, and 31% was developed. But in the next 20 years, 40% of the remaining open space is expected to be developed, Olsson said. Master plans and zoning ordinances in most communities don’t designate space for natural areas, and almost all natural areas are in private ownership and designated for some other use, such as residential or commercial development. And because current trends favor low density, she said, that means development consumes a lot of space per person.

In the Huron River watershed, trends include fragmentation of natural areas, loss of wetlands, and the loss of particular kinds of natural features, including oak barrens, prairies and wooded wetlands. Those are the kinds of areas that HRWC is prioritizing for protection.

Catherine Riseng, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

HRWC’s key messages, Olsson told commissioners, are: (1) encourage higher density development where infrastructure already exists; and (2) preserve natural areas so they can continue to provide the ecological services necessary to maintain quality of water, air, land, and life.

One purpose of the bioreserve project is to assess the remaining natural areas. Limited resources mean that not all natural areas can be protected, Olsson said, so a detailed inventory of the areas will help in determining which parcels should be preserved.

To do that, HRWC started with aerial photos in 2000, and used those to delineate areas that were forests, grasslands, wetlands – anything that could be defined as a natural area. The process used GIS (geographic information systems), and Olsson noted that GAC member Shannon Brines had been involved in this process. [Brines is manager of the Environmental Spacial Analysis (ESA) lab at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Environment.]

The process determined that there were more than 1,700 sites mapped as potential natural areas. The entire watershed is about 994,000 acres, and of that about 247,000 acres are in the bioreserve. Using GIS data, these areas were ranked on 15 criteria, including total size, the size of the core area, topographic and geological diversity, and remnants of endangered “plant communities.”

Olsson noted that a lot of the criteria to prioritize the bioreserve are also used in prioritizing the greenbelt’s preservation efforts.

Priority bioreserve sites in the Huron River watershed.

After HRWC created the GIS map, they started doing field assessments of some of these natural areas to get more information that will help conservancies and other programs – like Ann Arbor’s greenbelt – make decisions about which parcels to preserve. Olsson described the process of doing the assessments, which relies on trained volunteers. Information from that assessment – including a plant checklist, a description of invasive species and other details – is entered into a database, from which a report is generated. That report is then distributed to conservancies and other land preservation programs.

So far, HRWC has trained 249 volunteers and assessed 274 properties. Reports based on this data have helped preserve about 200 acres of land, Olsson said. Another five properties with a total of 547 acres are being evaluated now.

Olsson told commissioners that the HRWC hopes this data is used for “strategery” – helping land preservation programs make informed decisions about how to protect natural areas. Programs in Ann Arbor Township, Scio Township and Webster Township in particular have used the information, she said. [GAC member Jean Cares is also a member of the Webster Township farmland and open space board.]

Bioreserve Project: Commission Discussion

John Ramsburgh asked whether HRWC ever revisits the original bioreserve map. Kris Olsson replied that they’re looking at adding to the map – using historical photos to determine what land has not been plowed in the past. If it’s unplowed, there’s a strong chance that it will have a better seedbed.

John Ramsburgh.

In terms of updating the map’s boundaries, Olsson said it took a lot of work to do the original mapping, so an update would only likely occur if there were an automated way to do it.

Ramsburgh also asked for the source of the information that 40% of the remaining open space is expected to be developed in the next 20 years. Olsson said that came from the 2000 land use data generated by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG).

Ramsburgh also wanted to know what relationships HRWC had developed at the University of Michigan. [Ramsburgh is a development officer with UM’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. Commissioners Shannon Brines and Catherine Riseng also work for UM, and developer Peter Allen is an adjunct faculty member at UM's Ross School of Business.]

In addition to the GAC connections, Olsson mentioned naturalist Tony Reznicek, and Bob Grece, director of UM’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum, who was director of Olsson’s masters project.

Responding to another query from Ramsburgh, Olsson said that HRWC does offer internships, though there are none currently available for the bioreserve project.

Greenbelt Scoring Criteria

Dovetailing with the bioreserve presentation, Ginny Trocchio – who provides staff support for the greenbelt program – briefed commissioners on the screening and scoring criteria used to review potential greenbelt acquisitions, primarily through the purchase of development rights (PDR). [.pdf of scoring criteria]

There are two sets of criteria that differ only slightly – one for agricultural land, and another for open space/natural areas. Some properties are a mixture of both, but the predominant feature is chosen for scoring purposes, Trocchio said.

For both types of land, there are three major scoring categories:

• Land characteristics, such as soil type, parcel size and road frontage.
• Context, including how the land relates to adjacent or nearby properties.
• Acquisition considerations, such as whether there are matching funds available.

Trocchio reviewed details in each of these categories for both agricultural land and natural areas.

Archer Christian asked Trocchio who determined how each of these categories were weighted, and how that determination was made. Trocchio replied that she wasn’t involved in the program when the scoring mechanism was originally developed. Her understanding is that during the commission’s first year, they wanted to create the criteria before accepting applications. So the city hired a consultant to help develop that scoring mechanism. [The 30-year millage that supports the greenbelt program was passed by voters in 2003, and GAC was formed in 2004.]

Shannon Brines.

Trocchio noted that at different points since then, some additional criteria have been added. For example, the criterion awarding points if a property is located within an agricultural preservation district was added after the original criteria were developed. When the greenbelt program began, most townships didn’t have this kind of district, Trocchio explained. At one point, the state considered creating a purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) program. One criteria to be eligible for state grants would have been that townships have an area designated as an agricultural preservation district. Even though the state PDR program didn’t materialize, most township master plans have been updated to include those districts, Trocchio said.

Christian wondered if the original members of the greenbelt advisory commission expected that the scoring would be revisited at any point. Trocchio said she didn’t know. [No original members of GAC remain on the commission. The last two original members – Dan Ezekiel and Laura Rubin – were term limited and cycled off the commission in 2013.]

Trocchio highlighted other criteria. Some examples of characteristics that result in higher scores for property include:

• Has 3-4 natural features (stream corridors, woodlots or rare species).
• Located within 1 mile of the Ann Arbor city limits.
• Located within a township or village that has passed a purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) ordinance.
• 90% or more of the property’s perimeter is open space.
• Located adjacent to more than one protected property.
• Provides “broad, sweeping view from publicly accessible sites,” or has unique or historical features.
• Contains a Huron River tributary or is located along the river.
• Has 3 or more possible sources of matching funds.
• Landowner is willing to contribute 20% or more of the appraised value of development rights.

Most of the applications to the greenbelt program receive between 40-60% of the possible points, Trocchio said. Several recent applications have scored higher, mainly because of points awarded for being adjacent to protected land. That’s because more land is protected now than when the program first started, she noted.

Trocchio concluded by noting that information about this scoring system is on the greenbelt program’s website.

Staff Report

Ginny Trocchio also gave a brief staff report during the Feb. 6 meeting.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who provides staff support to the city’s greenbelt program.

She reported that Congress finally passed a farm bill, that was due to be signed by President Barack Obama the following day in East Lansing.

As anticipated, the bill combined different conservation easement programs into one program, she said. That includes the farm & ranchland protection program (FRPP), the grassland reserve program and the wetland reserve program. [The city's greenbelt program has received millions of dollars in FRPP matching funds over the past decade.]

In terms of continued funding, it’s expected to be fairly high for the next five years, Trocchio said – between $400 million to $500 million annually through 2017. It’s a good thing for the greenbelt program that there will be federal funding available, she said.

Trocchio reported that work is moving forward on the greenbelt’s new registry program. A brochure was designed and is being printed. A one-page agreement letter for landowners to sign has been vetted by the city attorney’s office. She said she’ll be working with commissioners Catherine Riseng and Shannon Brines – GAC’s chair and vice chair, respectively – to develop a summary of the registry program to send to city council as an information item.

By way of background, the registry was part of an updated strategic plan that the commission approved at its April 4, 2013 meeting. From the updated strategic plan:

In addition, recognizing that over the next 3-5 years, the Greenbelt will likely shift in program focus and will not be able to acquire as many properties or easements annually, it is important that the Commission maintain contact with landowners in the Greenbelt District who may be interested in protecting their land in the future. Therefore, the Greenbelt will prioritize establishing a Greenbelt Registry Program.

A land registry program is a listing of the properties that contain “special” natural features or has remained in farmland open space that landowners have voluntarily agreed to protect. This is an oral non-binding agreement between the City of Ann Arbor and the landowner. The landowner can end at any time, and the agreement does not affect the deed. The landowners agree to monitor and protect specific features of the property and notify the City if the landowner is planning on selling the property or if major threats have occurred.

The purpose of the land registry is to identify significant parcels of land and, through voluntary agreements with landowners, take the first step toward protection of the land’s natural resources. Furthermore, a land registry program recognizes landowners for protecting significant open space/natural features. Ultimately, these lands could be protected permanently through a conservation easement.

The landowner, by voluntarily agreeing to register their land, agrees to the following:

• Protect the land to the best of their ability
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any significant changes they are planning or any natural changes that have occurred.
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any intent to sell the property.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session. On Feb. 6, commissioners met in a closed session that lasted about 30 minutes. There was no action item when they emerged, and the meeting was adjourned.

Next meeting: Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] The meetings are open to the public and include two opportunities for public commentary.

Present: Shannon Brines, Jean Cares, Archer Christian, Jennifer Fike, John Ramsburgh, Catherine Riseng, Christopher Taylor. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Peter Allen, Stephanie Buttrey.

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.

Map of showing the location of 82 acres of mostly agricultural land in Superior Township that the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission is preserving through a conservation easement.

The new parcel of mostly agricultural land, on the north side of Ford Road a bit east of Berry Road, is owned by Ford Road Property Company LLC. The intent is to provide a buffer between Ford Road and the land that WCPARC previously purchased, as well as Superior Township’s nearby Schroeter Park. WCPARC authorized purchase of the easement for $413,000, which will prevent the land from being developed.

In a separate vote, commissioners authorized moving ahead on the purchase of 10 acres in Bridgewater Township – located near the southern border of Washtenaw County on the south side of WCPARC’s 43-acre Riverbend Preserve. Commissioners approved the preparation of a purchase offer of $92,500 contingent on completing all necessary due diligence and WCPARC’s final approval.

Also on Oct. 8, WCPARC director Bob Tetens provided an update on the proposed recreation center near downtown Ypsilanti, a project that WCPARC began almost two years ago. The proposal is to build a multi-purpose recreation center on part of the 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area on the south side of Michigan Avenue, next to the Huron River. The project would be a partnership, with the city providing the land, the county constructing the building, and the facility to be managed by the Ann Arbor YMCA.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber attended the Oct. 8 meeting, to emphasize the city’s strong support for this project. Discussion focused on possible changes to the design developed by a team of University of Michigan architects and students. The need to make changes arose from the city of Ypsilanti’s 2013 master planning and rezoning project, which is nearing completion.

In addition to the regular financial reports and updates, other actions at the Oct. 8 meeting included approving WCPARC’s participation in Pittsfield Township’s State Road corridor improvement authority. The CIA to improve State Road would entail capturing a percentage of taxes from several local entities, including taxes that support WCPARC.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

Nearly every WCPARC meeting includes discussion or action related to the county’s natural areas preservation program. NAPP is funded by a 10-year countywide millage of 0.2409 mills, which brings in about $3 million annually. Voters renewed the millage most recently in 2010, through 2020. The program enables WCPARC to buy land worth preserving because of its natural features, and to purchase development rights on agricultural land.

The Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC) advises WCPARC on acquisitions for nature preserves. The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee advises WCPARC on the purchase of development rights, primarily for farmland.

NAPP: Ford Road Property

Tom Freeman, former WCPARC deputy director who now serves as a consultant for the natural areas preservation program, made a presentation about the property on Ford Road. He reminded commissioners that this proposal was related to WCPARC’s February 2013 acquisition of several nearby parcels, totaling 67 acres.

From left: Nelson Meade and Fred Veigel of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Ford Road Property Company LLC owns the additional 82 acres, largely agricultural, that are now being considered. NATAC did not recommend outright acquisition of this parcel. Rather, the proposal calls for purchasing a conservation easement so that a farmer could continue to own, use and pay property taxes on the land.

Freeman’s written pointed out highlights of the property, including “a nice perennially wet area along Ford Road, and an old hedge row running down the middle of the property that hasn’t ever been farmed.”

Adjacent areas, he pointed out, include the Kosch preserve, the Superior Greenway, and other properties that are protected by Superior Township. Regarding the land’s topography, Freeman highlighted a significant change in elevation rising up from Ford Road. “It’s a gorgeous piece of property that is also a very productive agricultural site.” He added “We saw a magnificent buck when we last visited.”

Superior Township has provided a letter of support for this deal, Freeman said. He also described the three due diligence steps that WCPARC staff had taken:

• An appraisal by Bosserd Appraisal Services placed a value of $413,000 for a conservation easement on the 82-acre parcel, at $5,037 per acre.
• A phase 1 environmental site assessment prepared by Mannik & Smith Group found no evidence of recognized environmental concerns.
• A boundary survey with legal description and sealed survey drawing was completed.

NAPP: Ford Road Property – Commission Discussion

Commission member Fred Veigel asked about the use of active agricultural fields within properties that NAPP purchases [although this proposal was to purchase a conservation easement, not to buy the land outright]. Freeman responded that when NAPP purchases a property with fields in active use, the intent is to try to keep those fields in active use through a contract with a local farmer. In return for use of the land, the farmer is required to follow an agriculture management plan developed along guidelines established by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Services.

[Responding via email to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Freeman explained that allowing a field to go fallow often results in invasion by nuisance plants and weeds.]

The conservation easement allows the owner to continue to use the property in a fashion consistent with the terms of the easement, Freeman told commissioners. The Ford Road property will continue to be farmed, he said.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, WCPARC gave unanimous approval to purchase a conservation easement on the 82-acre Ford Road LLC property for $413,000.

NAPP: Dindoffer Property

Freeman also presented the recommendation to take the first step toward purchasing a 10-acre property in Bridgewater Township, near the southwest corner of Washtenaw County on the west side of Allen Road. The property is immediately south of WCPARC’s Riverbend Preserve. [This preserve is not yet equipped with parking for public access. WCPARC issued an RFP (request for proposals) in September 2013 to build a parking lot, bench and overlooks.]

Aerial view of Dindoffer property in Brigewater Township.

Freeman provided background on this proposed purchase. In 2006, the Tackett family nominated the property for consideration by NAPP, but the deal did not move forward. The property subsequently changed hands and the current owners, Johnathan and Kristin Dindoffer, decided to nominate the 10 acres for consideration by NAPP.

Freeman’s report highlighted the desirable qualities of the property: a wetland that’s the source of a seasonal stream running north across the property boundary and then into the River Raisin. “The most significant natural feature,” he continued, “is the frontage along the River Raisin … along the western boundary of the property.”

The land’s immediate adjacency to the Riverbend Preserve would provide a chance to expand the trail network being developed in the preserve. Freeman concluded by stating that an Oct. 2, 2013 Bosserd Appraisal Services assessment put the value of the property at $92,500, or approximately $9,158 per acre.

There was no substantive discussion, although a question about whether there is a house on the property revealed that there is not. The Dindoffers had intended to build on the land but had “decided otherwise,” Freeman said. He added that WCPARC was offering only $2,500 more than the Dindoffers had paid for it – “not enough to cover their taxes,” he said.

Outcome: A unanimous voice vote approved authorizing the WCPARC staff to prepare a purchase offer for the Dindoffer property for $92,500, contingent on completion of all necessary due diligence examination of the property and the commission’s final approval.

East County Recreation Center

During the Oct. 8 meeting, Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber spoke briefly to commissioners about the city’s strong interest in the East County Recreation Center.

By way of background, WCPARC has been working with the city of Ypsilanti, the Ann Arbor YMCA, and faculty and students of the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning to develop a plan for a recreation center in the eastern part of the county. The focus has been on a 12-acre site located within Ypsilanti’s Water Street area, on the south side of Michigan Avenue just east of downtown and next to the Huron River. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Pursues Major New Parks & Rec Deal."]

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber.

On Oct. 8, Schreiber talked about a meeting he’d had with WCPARC president Bob Marans and WCPARC director Bob Tetens. “The city is enthused – we need to keep working on it,” Schreiber told commissioners. “I’m here to facilitate communication. Let’s do it!”

Tetens reviewed the two-year process of planning for an east county recreation center. It began, he said, when WCPARC collaborated with the city of Ypsilanti to plan the piece of the Border-to-Border (B2B) trail that will run along the Huron River in Ypsilanti, crossing Michigan Avenue to continue on the east side of the river. [The trail is proposed for the west side of the 38-acre Water Street area, which the city is trying to develop.]

It became clear, Tetens continued, that the city’s interest was in the need to maximize commercial frontage along Michigan Avenue, in how to handle stormwater, and in providing enough parking. Tetens said that WCPARC staff worked with Ypsilanti city planner Teresa Gillotti, city manager Ralph Lange and University of Michigan professor of architecture Craig Borum. Borum – with a team of UM faculty and students – had developed a plan for the center that was discussed at a public session in September 2012.

There is now increased interest in the Water Street site, Tetens said, “perhaps from our interest, perhaps from the economy turning around.” He then described how the plan for the rec building was evolving. “So now we are ‘heading south’ [elongating the building to the south to minimize the Michigan Avenue frontage] and seeing how compact we can make our site.”

Coy Vaughn, WCPARC planner, continued the description by reciting basic facts about the area. The whole Water Street site is 38 acres. A strip 100 feet wide along the river might be set aside for a non-motorized trail; it could narrow as it leaves Michigan Avenue. Initially, about 12 acres was considered for the rec center site, he said. A marketing study done by the Ann Arbor Y brought the size of the building down from about 50,000 square feet to about 40,000.

Now, WCPARC staff are negotiating a development agreement with the city that will cover several aspects:

• Exact location and size of the parcel.
• Size and orientation of the structure.
• Proposed site plan and building design.
• Timeline for approval, permits, and construction.
• Plan for infrastructure development.
• Roles and responsibilities.
• Terms of a parcel transfer.

Tetens told commissioners that he had planned to bring a conceptual drawing to WCPARC that night, but discussions with the city in the last few days have revealed a “lot of moving parts in this project.” [The city is in the midst of rewriting its master plan and will follow that with rezoning. The Ann Arbor Y is studying the feasibility of managing the building. The county has to decide whether to pay for the building. And the city of Ypsilanti has to decide whether to give the land to the project.]

Tetens described another angle: the city is getting some interest from developers, who might want to put more residential uses on the site. He characterized that potential as “exciting, and if there is an interested developer we want to work with him.”

Vaughn described three new options for the rec building site, and explained that the UM architectural team is still helping with the project, for another $5,000. Those options include:

• Option A: Using 6.14 acres with a 304-foot frontage on Michigan Avenue, with parking to the rear of an elongated building massed on Michigan Avenue. Entrances would be on the west (from the B2B trail) and the east. The plan allows room for expansion of the building, and for a fishing dock on the river.
• Option B: 4.6 acres, 131 parking spaces, 348 feet along Michigan Avenue, and a building with a more square shape to free up desirable land along the river for residential use. Developers, Vaughn said, are excited about the prospect of building housing near the rec center.
• Option C: 5 acres, 170 parking spaces and 332 feet of Michigan Avenue frontage. This would save even more river frontage for residential.

East County Recreation Center – Commission Discussion

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore, Jr. – who also represents District 5 on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – began the discussion by expressing his impatience with the pace of the project. He asked whether there is an agreement yet with the city about the B2B trail and the pedestrian crossing on Michigan Avenue. “I don’t see why we are being wagged around. We have to take this to the county board [of commissioners],” Sizemore said. “We started this at 10 acres and now we’re down to 4.” He said he could wait until the end of December, but after that he suggested that “we tell the city what we want and let them decide whether to accept it.”

Commission member Pat Scribner urged patience and trying to work with the city, “since there seem to be new possibilities and we want to get this right without being rigid.”

Tetens pointed out that a smaller building would be less expensive to build and operate – an example of a new development that makes the project easier and more likely to be deemed sustainable by the YMCA. He added a note of understanding for Sizemore’s impatience: “We have all overheated at one time or another. It won’t go on forever.”

Outcome: The topic was for discussion only; no vote was taken.

Pittsfield Township Corridor Improvement Authority

Director Bob Tetens brought up the issue of whether WCPARC wanted to participate in Pittsfield Township’s proposed State Road corridor improvement authority (CIA).

Dick Carlisle of Carlisle/Wortman Associates Inc. and Craig Lyon, director of utilities and public services for Pittsfield Township, had given WCPARC a presentation about the proposal at WCPARC’s Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The project would entail capturing a percentage of taxes from several local entities, including taxes that support WCPARC.

Tetens briefly reviewed the aspects of the project that would overlap with what WCPARC would do – such as building non-motorized pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists. He also noted the potential loss of $600,000-$700,000 in WCPARC tax revenue over the 20 years of the project, but said it was “a good deal” for WCPARC because of “mission alignment.”

Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel, had told Tetens that WCPARC should write a letter indicating whether the commission agreed to the reduction in taxable revenue. [All taxing entities in the CIA have 60 days to indicate whether they intend to participate. That 60-day "opt out" period began after a public hearing held on Oct. 9 by the Pittsfield Township board of trustees.]

President Bob Marans commented that he had heard no objection to participation during the presentation. There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Unanimous approval to write a letter agreeing to the reduction in taxable revenue.

Projects and Activities

Each month, WCPARC staff provide updates to commissioners about ongoing improvement to WCPARC’s facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. The staff also share communications from users, whether individuals or groups. Some of this information is provided in writing in the board packet; more is provided with visuals and informal commentary. This report summarizes the most significant items.

• Rolling Hills Dog Swim: Staff reported that attendance at the 8^th annual event was the best ever, with 119 dogs swimming on Sept. 7.
• Hudson Mills B2B trail: The trail will be done within weeks, from the Westridge subdivision north for 3 miles.
• Ann Arbor Skate Park: The contractor has formed and installed reinforcement systems for the pools and some other skate park features, with concrete to be poured later in the month. Bob Tetens told commissioners that “short of going out to California, I don’t know what’s like it.” [WCPARC contributed $400,000 toward the skate park in September 2012. It's located in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor.] Commissioner Fred Veigel expressed concern about safety and supervision at the park. Tetens responded that it will be a city of Ann Arbor park, and that skate parks normally are not staffed. Signs warn users about safety measures.
• Staff events and achievements: Three WCPARC staff took part in the first annual United Way kickball challenge for county employees. Thonda J. Petty received an award from the county for “service and program enhancements” at Rolling Hills Park.
• Sharon Mills Park: The new pedestrian bridge project is complete.
  

Communications & Commentary

Throughout the meeting there were several opportunities for staff and commissioners to share communications or bring up items of discussion about matters not directly related to the agenda. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Swift Run Dog Park

Commission member Rolland Sizemore Jr., who had spoken at the September meeting about problems at the Swift Run Dog Park, said he continued to get complaints about the park.

Sign at Swift Run Dog Park, a joint venture of the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

Coy Vaughn responded, saying he had met with city of Ann Arbor parks and recreation staff about making improvements: adding benches, shade trees, and making the paths easier to walk on by adding finer gravel. They also talked about possibly paving the parking lot, but Vaughn reported that this cannot be done because the dog park is on top of a landfill.

In response to a question from commissioner Bob Marans about who is responsible for making improvements, Vaughn reminded the group that the dog park is a joint project between WCPARC and the city of Ann Arbor, and WCPARC owes money to the city as a partner. Once that is paid off, sometime in the next year, Vaughn said, “we could divest.”

Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation department is, he said, planning for other dog parks. [An update on that effort was provided at the Sept. 17, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.] WCPARC director Bob Tetens commented: “This was our first dog park and it was polarizing – people who feared attacks from dogs, people who think dogs can do no wrong. Over the years, though, the park has been a success, with people and dogs out there all the time.”

Sizemore returned to his point: He hears complaints, and he wants to be sure the park is kept up to WCPARC’s standard. “I don’t want this to fall by the wayside just because we have to partner with Ann Arbor. If we can’t partner with them, let’s walk away from it.”

Communications & Commentary: Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti

Commissioner Fred Veigel noted the appreciation that WCPARC had earned by contributing to the renovation of Rutherford Pool. He described a couple of items that still needed attention – a fence and some electrical work – for which he had obtained volunteer help to complete.

Financial Reports

Staff provide several different financial reports to WCPARC each month, focused on the past month’s expenses (the claims report), monthly and year-to-date reports on expenses and revenues in the form of fund balance reports, and a listing of major non-recurring expenses. The October meeting reviewed reports for September. There are separate reports on parks and facilities, and on the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which includes preservation of agricultural lands. Each of these has its own, separate funding, although WCPARC administers all of these programs.

Financial Reports: Claims Report

Parks and facilities paid a total of $207,443 in September – including $20,430 for capital improvements, primarily at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. WCPARC director Bob Tetens told commissioners, “You can see we are out of our capital improvements activity. The only expense was to remove the old spray zone at Independence Lake.”

NAPP claims exceeded that with $468,456, almost entirely the cost of acquiring land.

Total claims paid by WCPARC in September 2013: $675,899. [.pdf of September 2013 claims report]

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – Parks and Recreation

A report on the parks and recreation fund balance showed the projected fund balance of $8,455,552 by the end of the year – Dec. 31, 2013. The fund balance started the year at $12,950,815.

As of Sept. 30, 2013, revenue totaled $9,415,170 – primarily from property taxes ($6,408,702) and fees and services ($2,982,038). Expenses year to date were $10,386,711.

In addition, the parks budget includes an operating reserve of $6.7 million and ”partnership” funding commitments of $925,000. [.pdf of parks and recreation fund balance report]

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – NAPP

The Jan. 1, 2013 fund balance for NAPP was $10,263,644. Through Sept. 30, 2013, revenue was $3,460,249 and expenses were $4,095,192. The projected year-end fund balance for NAPP is $10,200,558. [.pdf of NAPP fund balance report]

There was no substantive discussion of the reports.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously voted to receive, accept and file the financial reports.

Recreation Reports

These monthly reports include attendance at WCPARC facilities where attendance can be counted, with information about participation in measurable activities and revenue received at those facilities. The reports include the current year-to-date summary as well as comparable information for the prior two years.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

The Meri Lou Murray rec center is doing better financially this year than the prior two years, according to a report by WCPARC director Bob Tetens, even though participation is down. Year-to-date participation as of Sept. 30, 2013 was 240,978 and revenue was $953,424. In 2012, year-to-date participation was 241,052 and revenue was $894,742. In 2011, participation was 254,755 and revenue was $906,187. [.pdf of MLM Rec Center report]

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

As he has for the last several months, Bob Tetens recommended comparing Pierce Lake Golf Course’s use in 2013 to 2011 rather than 2012 because of the hotter weather in 2012, when the golf course opened two weeks earlier than normal.

Through the end of September 2013, 15,412 people had paid greens fees totaling $347,503. That compares with 18,376 people and revenues of $382,964 in 2012. In 2011, 14,403 people paid $313,016. Programming and retail operations brought in $101,807 in 2013; $105,311 in 2012; and $82,383 in 2011.

Total revenue in 2013 was $547,330, compared to $588,426 in 2012 and $479,345 in 2011. [.pdf of Pierce Lake Golf Course report]

Recreation Reports: Rolling Hills Park and Water Park

There is an entrance fee, and gate count, for everyone who enters Rolling Hills Park. There is a separate fee, and gate count, for those who go on to enter the water park there.

Through the end of September 2013, 30,305 people paid $237,838 to enter Rolling Hills Park. That’s down from a gate count for the same period in 2012 of 34,132 people, who paid $264,825. In 2011, 34,612 people paid $265,933.

The water park draws greater attendance, but both attendance and revenues are down in 2013 compared to the same period in previous years. So far in 2013, 94,266 people paid $715,239. That compares to attendance in 2012 of 114,522 people and $780,122; and a 2011 count of 115,012 people and $780,995 in revenues.

Total year-to-date revenue for all operations at Rolling Hills was $1,201,672 in 2013, compared to $1,317,599 in 2012 and $1,309,007 in 2011. [.pdf of Rolling Hills report]

Recreation Reports: Independence Lake Park and Blue Heron Bay

Blue Heron Bay is a water-feature area separate from the rest of Independence Lake Park. Because Blue Heron Bay opened in 2013, there are no comparisons to earlier years.

By the end of September 2013, 15,392 people paid $122,022 to use Independence Lake Park. That compares to 2012 attendance of 17,743 people and $137,217 in revenues. In 2011, 16,846 people attended the park, with revenues of $131,504.

Attendance at Blue Heron Bay was 17,668 through September 2013, for $69,787 in revenues.

Total revenue for all of Independence Lake Park was, through September 2013, $295,370 in 2013. That compares to $211,458 in 2012 and $208,474 in 2011. [.pdf of Independence Lake report]

Outcome: The recreation reports were received and accepted for filing unanimously.

Present: Janis Bobrin, Robert Marans, Nelson Meade, Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner, Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Fred Veigel. Also director Robert Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Absent: Jan Anschuetz, Conan Smith.

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

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!

Aerial view of County Farm Park, located in Ann Arbor south of Washtenaw Avenue, between Medford and Platt. The county parks & recreation commission has budgeted $250,000 in 2015 to put in a dog park on the west side of the park. (Photo by Victor Banta, included in the WCPARC Sept. 10, 2013 meeting packet.]

First, the commission gave final approval for a natural areas preservation program purchase: $390,005 to buy 13 acres from members of the Harwood family, located along Michigan Avenue in Pittsfield Township. The property is primarily high quality native woodland, nearly devoid of invasive species. In addition, it is proximate to the Pittsfield Preserve, owned and operated by Pittsfield Township, so existing trails can be extended, and there is a possibility of using a single parking lot for both sites.

Parks & rec commissioners also gave permission to spend up to $100,000 at the Meri Lou Murray Rec Center to replace the HVAC system’s pneumatic controls with digital controls. The project has been delayed because of a recent court ruling related to construction unity board (CUB) agreements.

The final major agenda item was approval of proposed budgets for 2014 and 2015 and projected budgets for 2016 and 2017. Bob Tetens, director of WCPARC, presented the budgets in the context of WCPARC’s millage history and developments since the mid-1970s, as well as budget strategies underlying all the proposals. The budget contains separate sections for the natural areas preservation program (NAPP) and for parks operations & development, because they are supported by separate millages. [.pdf of WCPARC budget document]

The 2013 operations & development budget of $13.79 million in expenditures drops to $10.417 million next year. The staff is proposing a budget of $13.574 million in expenditures for 2015. The projected budgets in 2016 and 2017 are $12.672 million and $10.009 million, respectively. Over the four years from 2014-2017, the operations & development budget – which does not include NAPP – will draw from its fund balance. At the end of 2012, the operations & development fund balance was $12.95 million. By the end of 2017, the fund balance is projected to drop to $2.8 million.

Expenditures for NAPP are projected to remain flat in the 2014-2015 budgets, at around $3.7 million annually, then drop to about $3.5 million in 2016 and 2017.

Commissioners discussed renewing the parks operating millage, which expires in 2016. It’s possible that staff will recommend putting a renewal on the November 2014 ballot. Other discussion focused on efforts to make WCPARC’s operations more self-sufficient, and whether personnel expenditures could be reduced.

The budget section on capital improvements generated discussion about dog parks. In 2015, a dog park is tentatively slated for the Medford Road side of the 141-acre County Farm Park, at a projected cost of $250,000. Some commissioners expressed concerns about WCPARC’s existing Swift Run dog park, which was developed in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor at the southwest corner of Platt and Ellsworth. Complaints focused on the lack of shade and water, but Tetens explained there are constraints about what can be done on that site, stemming from the dog park’s location on a former landfill.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. suggested that WCPARC should invest in the Swift Run dog park “or give it to Ann Arbor.” The city of Ann Arbor is currently exploring the possibility of adding another dog park that would be more centrally located. A public forum for that effort is set for Tuesday, Sept. 24 from 7-9 p.m. at the Traverwood library, 3333 Traverwood Drive.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

The county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) is funded by a 10-year countywide millage of 0.2409 mills, which brings in about $3 million annually. Voters renewed the millage most recently in 2010, through 2020. The program enables WCPARC to purchase land worth preserving because of its natural features, and to purchase development rights on agricultural land.

The Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC) advises the parks & rec commission on NAPP acquisitions. The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee advises it on the purchase of development rights.

NAPP: Harwood Properties

There was just one NAPP item on the Sept. 10 agenda: final approval to purchase 13 acres on Michigan Avenue in Pittsfield Township from members of the Harwood family, for $390,005. Tom Freeman, retired deputy director of WCPARC who now serves as a consultant on NAPP activities, presented supporting material, which summarized the information he had presented to WCPARC at the Aug. 13, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view showing boundaries of four properties along Michigan Avenue in Pittsfield Township that have been considered for purchase by the county’s natural areas preservation program. Approval of purchasing the two Harwood properties was on WCPARC’s Sept. 10 agenda.

Freeman began by reminding commission members that a month earlier they had approved purchase of the Holley property, 3 acres north and east of the Harwood parcels and separated by a 2-acre parcel.  The adjacency of these parcels to the Pittsfield Preserve to the north increases their value. “Clearing of the Harwood properties would certainly have a serious, detrimental impact on the adjacent Pittsfield Preserve,” Freeman said, “both as a viable habitat and the quality of the viewshed.”

NATAC had recommended the property for purchase. Freeman showed a new slide of aerial and soils, which showed the amount of development around the site. In fact, he said, WCPARC’s purchase had been held up because the owners had received another offer, which eventually fell through for failure to meet contingencies.

Freeman reported completion of all due diligence: Bosserd Appraisal Services gave the two parcels a value of $390,005, about $30,093 per acre; Mannik and Smith Group’s phase I environmental site assessment found no evidence of recognized environmental concerns; and WCPARC obtained a boundary survey including legal description and a sealed survey drawing.

NAPP: Harwood Properties – Commission Discussion

Commission member Jan Anschuetz reminded her colleagues that the property has great historical value because of its owners over the years, the historical quality of the native woods, and Michigan Avenue’s role as an Indian trail. Plus, she said, it would be wonderful to have the WCPARC signs along busy Michigan Avenue.

Her positive comments were followed by objections from commission member Fred Veigel, who also serves on the Washtenaw County road commission. Veigel criticized the purchase price, saying “I can’t see paying $30,000 an acre for anything.”

Freeman reminded WCPARC that August’s purchase of the Holley property had cost $30,000 an acre.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, the motion to purchase the Harwood properties for $390,005 passed 6-1, with Veigel voting against it.

NAPP: Update on DF Land Development

Freeman also gave commissioners an update about the purchase of two parcels in Superior Township, near WCPARC’s Goodrich Preserve. The land is owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. At its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting, WCPARC voted to buy the two properties – a 5-acre and 12-acre purchase.

WCPARC had agreed to pay a total of $322,000 for the parcels. On Sept. 10, Freeman reported that the Ann Arbor city council had agreed to contribute 10%, or $32,000, toward the purchase, reducing WCPARC’s cost to $290,000. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Greenbelt Grows Again."]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget

Director Bob Tetens presented the 35-page budget document, which contained both summary and detailed information about WCPARC’s proposed 2014 and 2015 budgets, and the projected 2016 and 2017 budgets. [.pdf of WCPARC budget document] Earlier this year, the county board of commissioners directed the administration, including WCPARC, to develop a four-year budget, starting Jan. 1, 2014. In recent years, the county has worked on a two-year budget cycle.

WCPARC 2014-2017 budget chart.

“We are on a tight timeframe,” Tetens said. WCPARC needed to approve or modify the budget that night, so that it could be transmitted to the county board of commissioners by the end of the month. [For additional background on WCPARC’s budget and operations, see Chronicle coverage: "County Parks & Rec System Plans for Future."]

The budget contains separate sections for the natural areas preservation program (NAPP) and for parks operations & development, because they are supported by separate millages.

Parks has two separate millages – one for operations, another for acquisition and development. The parks operations millage is a 10-year, quarter-mill tax that was first approved in November 1978, and subsequently renewed in 1984, 1994, and 2004. The current millage expires on Dec. 1, 2016. Parks acquisition and development also has a 10-year  quarter-mill tax, first approved in November 1988, renewed in 1998 and 2008. It expires on Dec. 1, 2018.

NAPP’s 10-year quarter-mill tax was first approved in November 2000 and renewed in 2010. It expires on Dec. 1, 2020.

Before Tetens delved into the budget details, he presented the strategies that underpin all of WCPARC’s decisions, including budgetary elements. [For overall priorities set by the elected county board of commissioners, see Chronicle coverage: "Priorities Set for County Budget" and "County Board Sets Budget Meetings."]

The WCPARC strategies include:

• Continue to be conservative & sustainable; maintain operating reserve.
• Maintain current parks and facilities to existing high standards.
• Continue the planned development of the county parks system in an orderly, thoughtful, and sustainable manner, providing recreational opportunities to underserved areas or populations.
• Maintain commitment to ecological stewardship and restoration.
• Consider opportunities to diversify revenue-generating capabilities – to support future growth and operations.
• Consider partnerships wherever possible; seek opportunities to collaborate on local recreational efforts consistent with WCPARC’s mission.

The budget, Tetens continued, is tightly tied to the WCPARC’s master plan. [WCPARC staff are currently updating the plan, including a survey for the public to provide input.]

The 2013 operations & development budget of $13.79 million in expenditures drops to $10.417 million next year. The staff is proposing a budget of $13.574 million in expenditures for 2015. The projected budgets in 2016 and 2017 are $12.672 million and $10.009 million, respectively. Over the four years from 2014-2017, the operations & development budget – which does not include NAPP – will draw from its fund balance. At the end of 2012, the operations & development fund balance was $12.95 million. By the end of 2017, the fund balance is projected to drop to $2.8 million.

Expenditures for NAPP are projected to remain flat in the 2014-2015 budgets, at around $3.7 million annually, then drop to about $3.5 million in 2016 and 2017. For NAPP, the fund balance stood at $7.006 million at the end of 2012. That’s expected to drop to $6.923 million by the end of 2013. In 2014, the fund balance is projected to be $6.543 million, dropping slightly each year until a projected balance of $5.960 million in 2017.

Focusing on the 2014 and 2015 budgets, Tetens described the underlying assumptions: personnel costs will increase up to 1%, as will millage revenue. WCPARC plans to tap into its fund balances as needed in all three budgets – parks operations, parks development, and NAPP.

The budget presentation also included a look at revenues and expenses for each of WCPARC’s major facilities, as well as projected capital expenses for six years, through 2019. Total capital improvements and other funding commitments total $25.561 million for the period from 2013 through 2019.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion

Commission comments and questions concerned renewing the operating millage, which expires in 2016. Also discussed were efforts to make WCPARC’s operations more self-sufficient, and whether personnel expenditures could be reduced.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion – Millage

Fred Veigel reminded WCPARC members that “at some point, we need to think about whether the public will keep renewing millages. Everyone keeps asking for more money and the public will say no.”

Bob Marans agreed with Veigel’s point, saying “we have taken it for granted that we will get a renewal.”

Two of the elected county commissioners who serve on WCPARC – Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. – weighed in on the issue. Smith urged WCPARC to make a decision soon about whether or not to put the millage renewal on the 2014 ballot. Sizemore agreed.

Tetens said it had been WCPARC’s habit to put its millage renewal on the ballot a couple of years in advance of expiration, to allow for better planning and a second chance, if the millage renewal fails on an initial vote. He said he would be recommending that WCPARC put a millage renewal on the November 2014 ballot.

Smith pointed out that many other entities may be putting millages on the ballot, and it would be to WCPARC’s advantage to be “first in line.”

Marans asked Tetens what he had planned in preparation for a possible renewal vote. Tetens responded that the parks & rec master plan is being updated, including plans for public input. Staff also are developing marketing and promotional materials. “We are planning a whole campaign,” Tetens said. “We’ll reactivate the Friends of County Parks. Our story will be about what we have done and what we will do.”

Marans asked Tetens to bring his plans to WCPARC so they could add their ideas, and Tetens suggested a retreat to allow for further discussion and input.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion – Self-Sufficiency

The topic of making WCPARC more financially self-sufficient came up when Dan Smith asked whether WCPARC should have a “strategy of reducing our need for an operating millage by making our buildings more self-sufficient, such as – hypothetically – making an investment in geothermal at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center to reduce heating and cooling costs.”

Parks & recreation commissioners Patricia Scribner and Bob Marans, who is president of WCPARC. Scribner also serves as Pittsfield Township treasurer.

Tetens responded that the best area to attempt self-sufficiency is in the natural areas preservation program. If NAPP can build up a fund balance for stewardship, then there might not be the need to renew the NAPP millage in 2020, he said, or the millage request could be for a reduced amount.

As to everything else, Tetens indicated that it’s very hard to achieve self-sufficiency because most of the park facilities can’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. Many of the parks don’t have a gate – that is, the parks are not staffed and so entry fees can’t be collected.

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz objected to the concept of self-sufficiency, saying that WCPARC’s history is that “we want our parks to be priced to people of all economic levels can use them.” WCPARC tried to make the Pierce Lake golf course self sufficient so that it might even subsidize other operations, she noted, but that didn’t work. When people use WCPARC’s facilities, she said, “we’re keeping citizens healthy.”

Evan Pratt – who also serves as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner – noted that two-thirds of WCPARC’s costs are for personnel. If overall costs were to be reduced, staff cuts would be needed.

Tetens agreed the issue of self-sufficiency would be a good topic to discuss, but observed that “you have to have staff present to have a park facility that people will pay to enter.”

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion – Dog Park

The section on capital improvements generated discussion about dog parks. In 2015, a dog park is tentatively slated for the Medford Road side of the 141-acre County Farm Park, at a projected cost of $250,000.

Commission members Jan Anschuetz and Rolland Sizemore Jr. both criticized WCPARC’s Swift Run dog park, which is run in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. They agreed it is heavily used, “even on a yucky day,” Anschuetz said. She noted that “people are there because there is nothing else. We owe it to our taxpayers to invest in a good dog park in a good location. There are great county dog parks out there, some including water. Dog parks are for people, not just dogs.”

Bob Tetens explained the strict limits that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality puts on Swift Run, because the dog park was built on top of a former city of Ann Arbor landfill. “We can’t pierce the surface, so we can’t put in benches or umbrellas,” he said.

Sizemore responded: “We need to put money into it or give it to Ann Arbor. It’s an embarrassment.”

Bob Marans wrapped up the discussion by noting that commissioners have had a chance to review the overall budget for the last two months, and had been given a good overview by Tetens.

Tetens said he would go over the material with the three absent members: Janis Bobrin, Nelson Meade, and Conan Smith.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, the budgets for 2014-2017 were approved unanimously.

Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center: Digital Control System

At its May 14, 2013 meeting, WCPARC authorized staff to move forward with a request for proposals (RFP) to replace the existing pneumatic control system in the Meri Lou Murray recreation center with a new digital control system. The rationale for getting the new controls was to get better temperature control in each space, reduce downtime when the pneumatic controls break, reduce staff time spent adjusting the pneumatics, and reduce energy consumption.

Coy Vaughn, WCPARC deputy director.

On Sept. 10, deputy director Coy Vaughn reported that there had been a breakdown of air conditioning in the building that week, due to a condenser failure. That’s an example of the need to improve the building’s HVAC systems, he said.

Ten firms responded to the RFP with competitive bids ranging from $96,500 to $178,000. WCPARC staff interviewed the two low bidders on Aug. 27, and determined that the preferred contractor was Metro Controls Inc. based in Clinton Township, which bid $96,500.

However, Vaughn reported, because of a recent ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit, the bid process must be redone. In an email to The Chronicle, WCPARC director Bob Tetens explained that the ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati had upheld state law prohibiting the requirement of construction unity board (CUB) agreements. [For background on the CUB legislation, see Chronicle coverage: "County Board Suspends CUB Agreement."]

MLM Recreation Center: Digital Control System – Commission Discussion

Commission member Dan Smith saw the dilemma: the air conditioning system was compromised, the weather was hot, and the process had to be redone. He suggested that WCPARC approve spending an amount not to exceed $100,000 so that staff could move ahead more quickly. There was agreement on that approach, which became a formal motion. Evan Pratt suggested a friendly amendment: adding “lowest qualified bidder,” which Smith accepted.

Fred Veigel wondered why WCPARC would use a vendor in Novi, rather than “local contractors who work and live here and pay taxes, even if they charge a few bucks more.” There was no response.

Jan Anschuetz asked for more information about the bidders, “perhaps who are the lowest five bidders, where they are, to help us make our decision.”

The discussion revealed that the county purchasing agent formerly supplied this information as a matter of routine, and that Tetens would provide it in the future.

Outcome: The motion to approve entering into a contract for replacing the pneumatic controls with digital controls at a cost of up to $100,000, with the lowest qualified bidder, was unanimously approved.

Financial Reports

Staff provide several different financial reports to WCPARC each month, focused on the past month’s expenses (the claims report), monthly and year-to-date reports on expenses and revenues in the form of fund balance reports, and a listing of major non-recurring expenses when they are significant.

The September meeting reviewed reports for August. There are separate reports on parks and facilities, and on the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which includes preservation of agricultural lands. Each of these has its own, separate funding, although WCPARC administers all of these programs.

Financial Reports: Claims Report

Parks and facilities paid a total of $316,298 in August. Of that, $146,300 was for capital improvements, primarily at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. [.pdf of claims report]

NAPP claims far exceeded that with $2,571,483, almost entirely the cost of completing purchases for the Jarsky, Holley, and DF Land properties. [For background on those deals, see Chronicle coverage of WCPARC's Aug. 13, 2013 meeting.] In an email to The Chronicle, Tom Freeman clarified the components of the NAPP claims in August:

• DF Land Development: 54-acre parcel – $2,048,270
• DF Land Development: 5 & 12-acre parcels – $325,532
• Holley Property: $84,817.83
• Jarskey Property: $57,839.77
• Cost of due diligence (appraisals, environmental site assessments, surveys, legal expenses, etc.): $51,664

Total claims paid by WCPARC in August 2013 were $2,887,781.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – Parks and Recreation

Parks & rec director Bob Tetens introduced this report by saying there has not been a lot of activity in the last month; revenue is down due to bad weather. On the other hand, the dip in revenue is matched by a dip in expenses, he said. The projected fund balance at the end of 2013 is $8,220,788. The fund balance started the year at $12,950,815. [.pdf of parks & rec fund balance statement]

As of Aug. 31, 2013, revenue totaled $8,550,664 – primarily from property taxes ($5,811,813) and fees and services ($2,685,995). Expenses year-to-date were $9,756,948. In addition, the parks budget includes an operating reserve of $6.7 million and ”partnership” funding commitments of $925,000.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – NAPP

The Jan. 1, 2013 fund balance for NAPP was $10,263,644. [.pdf of NAPP fund balance statement] Through Aug. 31, 2013, revenue was $3,184,873 and expenses were $3,076,995. Tetens pointed out that the August fund balance for NAPP does not yet reflect expenditures for closings that occurred in September. The projected fund balance for NAPP is $10,410,585 by the end of 2013.

There was no substantive discussion of the reports.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously voted to receive, accept, and file the financial reports.

Recreation Reports

These monthly reports include attendance at WCPARC facilities where attendance can be counted, with information about participation in measurable activities and revenue received at those facilities. The reports include the current year-to-date summary as well as similar information for the prior two years.

On Sept. 10, WCPARC director Bob Tetens introduced the August reports with an explanation about the impact of weather on attendance, especially in comparison to 2012, which was much hotter and drier than this year.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

The Meri Lou Murray rec center is, Tetens highlighted, doing better financially this year than the prior two years. Year-to-date participation as of Aug. 31, 2013 was 220,042 and revenue was $800,166. In 2012, year-to-date participation was 217,352 and revenue was $750,034. In 2011, participation was 234,162 and revenue was $764,410. [.pdf of MLM rec center report]

Commission member Rolland Sizemore, Jr. asked whether attendance at MLMRC was affected by the existence of the rec center at Washtenaw Community College. No, Tetens responded: “We saw an impact only when it first opened.”

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

Tetens recommended comparing Pierce Lake Golf Course’s use in 2013 to 2011 rather than 2012 because of the hotter weather in 2012, when the golf course opened two weeks earlier than normal. “The course looks better now than in the last seven or eight years,” he said. “We get lots of compliments.” [.pdf of Pierce Lake golf course report]

Through the end of August 2013, 13,240 people had paid greens fees totaling $287,432. In 2012, 15,862 people paid $328,973. In 2011, 13,100 people paid $269,139. Programming and retail operations brought in $83,028 in 2013; $92,301 in 2012; and $70,719 in 2011. Total revenue in 2013 was $453,151, compared to $510,179 in 2012 and $413,957 in 2011.

Recreation Reports: Rolling Hills Park and Water Park

There is an entrance fee and gate count for everyone who enters Rolling Hills Park. There is a separate fee, and gate count, for those who go on to enter the water park there. [.pdf of Rolling Hills report]

As members of WCPARC looked at the report on Rolling Hills, Jan Anschuetz reminded them: “Last year we had 10 days over 100 degrees. This year, we had a month of rain.”

In 2013, 29,234 people paid $230,683 to enter Rolling Hills Park. That compares to 32,862 people in 2012 and $256,938 in revenue. In 2011, 32,858 people paid $254,995.

The water park proved much more popular, but still showed declining attendance compared to previous years. In 2013, 92,117 people paid $697,321. That compares to 111,944 people and $760,764 in 2012, and 114,440 people and $751,811 in 2011. Total revenue for all operations at Rolling Hills was $1,171,715 in 2013, compared to $1,284,273 in 2012 and $1,258,579 in 2011.

In spite of these numbers, Tetens said, “the two busiest days ever at Rolling Hills were this year, and they were not on holidays.”

Recreation Reports: Independence Lake Park & Blue Heron Bay

Blue Heron Bay is a water-feature area separate from the rest of Independence Lake Park. Unlike Rolling Hills Water Park, Tetens described Blue Heron Bay as “not the type of facility where parents leave their kids all day.” [Blue Heron Bay’s water features appeal to younger children, who stay for shorter periods with their parents; Rolling Hills is more popular with older children.] [.pdf of Independence Lake report]

Because Blue Heron Bay opened in 2013, there are no comparisons to earlier years.

In 2013, 14,691 people paid $117,651 to use Independence Lake Park. That compares to 16,803 people and $131,463 in 2012; and 15,856 people and $125,345 in revenues during 2011. Attendance at Blue Heron Bay was 17,312, for $68,416 in revenue.

Total revenue for all of Independence Lake Park was, through August, $288,330 in 2013; $204,392 in 2012; and $195,895 in 2011.

Outcome: The recreation reports were received and accepted for filing unanimously.

Projects and Activities

Staff of WCPARC provide monthly updates to commissioners about ongoing improvements at facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. Some of this information is provided in a written report that’s part of the board packet; more is provided with visuals and informal commentary during the meeting. This report summarizes the most significant items at the September 2013 meeting.

• Rolling Hills Family Camp Out: WCPARC director Bob Tetens reported that this event, held in August, had the best attendance ever this year. To include more people, it would have to move to a different location. Commission member Rolland Sizemore Jr. remarked that “kids don’t have camping experience anymore, but they can [get it] here.” He noted that he’d seen cars with Ohio and Pennsylvania license plates at the event. Tetens explained the event includes setting up tents, nature walks, games, arts, crafts, and stories and s’mores around a campfire. In the morning, Boy Scouts prepare a big pancake breakfast. 
  
• NACPRO award to Blue Heron Bay: This national award was in Class 1 and will be awarded at the National Association of County Park and Recreation Officials annual conference in October, in Houston.
• Ann Arbor skatepark: Construction has begun, and is “going fast,” Tetens reported, noting that it was a $400,000 grant from WCPARC that got the project off the ground. The skatepark will be located at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, a city of Ann Arbor park.
• Aerial photographs of WCPARC properties: Tetens showed several photos by Victor Banta. The photo of County Farm Park brought a discussion of the difficulty of mowing the sloped strip adjacent to Washtenaw Avenue, which several commissioners had noticed. Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, suggested that his staff could help with that next year, since the land is near a county drain.
• Programming and activities: Tetens showed slides of several public programs: a prairie walk at Independence Lake; a nature walk at Spike Preserve; a spider walk at the County Farm Park; a stream walk; day camps; a summer picnic at Willow Run with free fishing; the annual employee golf outing at Pierce Lake, which collected $245 and 113 pounds of food for Food Gatherers; and a United Way event in which staff “stuff the [school] bus” with school supplies.
• Henry Ford event: Tetens pitched an event to honor Henry Ford’s 150^th birthday (1863-2013): “Henry Ford: A Historical Perspective,” a talk by Mike Skinner on Sunday, Oct. 6 at 3 p.m. at Sharon Hills park.

Present: Jan Anschuetz, Robert Marans, Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner, Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Fred Veigel.

Absent: Janis Bobrin, Nelson Meade, and Conan Smith.

Staff: Director Robert Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

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!

Christopher Taylor and Jean Cares at the Sept. 5, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

Cares had been confirmed by the city council on July 15 to replace Tom Bloomer, filling the slot designated for a farmer. She co-owns the Dexter Mill, and serves with Bloomer on the Webster Township farmland and open space board. Ramsburgh, who was confirmed on Aug. 8, is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He replaces Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

The Sept. 5 meeting was in some ways a tutorial on the greenbelt program. It began with introductions of all the members, and included a presentation on conservation easements.

Ginny Trocchio, who provides staff support for the program, also reviewed the draft activity report and financial statements for fiscal 2013, which ended June 30. During the year, the greenbelt program completed 5 deals covering 448 acres of farmland in Webster, Salem, Superior and Lodi townships.

Total revenues for the open space and parkland preservation program – which includes the greenbelt as well as park acquisitions – were $2.626 million. Of that, $2.141 million came from proceeds of the program’s 30-year millage, which voters approved in 2003. Total expenses for the year were $3.357 million. In addition to $1.227 million for debt service, expenses include $1.757 million in greenbelt projects and $242,867 for parkland acquisition.

During her staff report, Trocchio highlighted upcoming on-the-road events, including a Sept. 21 bus tour of greenbelt properties that’s open to the public, and a driving tour of greenbelt land as part of the commission’s Oct. 3 meeting.

Annual Greenbelt Report

Ginny Trocchio is a staff member of The Conservation Fund who provides support to the greenbelt program under contract with the city. She briefed commissioners on the annual activity report for the city’s open space and parkland preservation program for the fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. [.pdf of draft fiscal 2013 activity report]

The greenbelt program and park acquisitions are funded through a 30-year 0.5 mill tax that Ann Arbor voters passed in 2003. It’s called the open space and parkland preservation millage, and appears on the summer tax bill as the line item CITY PARK ACQ.

John Ramsburgh attended his first meeting as a greenbelt advisory commissioner on Sept. 5.

The city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the greenbelt program. The greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) handles the portion for land preservation outside of the city limits, while the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) oversees the funds for parkland acquisition. PAC’s land acquisition committee, of which all PAC commissioners are members, makes recommendations for parkland purchases.

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 millage. Debt service on that bond in FY 2013 year totaled $1.227 million. [Two debt service payments are made during the fiscal year.]

Since launching, the program has helped preserve 4,226 acres of farmland and open space. That includes 1,484 acres in Webster and Scio townships, 1,415 acres in Northfield and Ann Arbor townships, 819 acres in Salem and Superior townships, 337 acres in Lodi Township, and 89 acres in Pittsfield Township.

Trocchio noted that the average price per acre has decreased since the greenbelt program began – from over $16,000 per acre in fiscal 2006, when the first purchases were made, to just below $4,000 now.

Five transactions were completed in the last fiscal year, covering 448 acres of farmland:

• The VanNatter farm in Webster Township (total greenbelt contribution: $103,657, plus $23,867 for an endowment).
• The Hornback property in Salem Township, in partnership with Salem Township and Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission (total greenbelt contribution: $168,312, plus $23,867 for an endowment).
• The Robbin Alexander farm in Webster Township, which included grant funds from the USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) for 49% of the purchase price (total greenbelt contribution: $367,792, plus $23,867 for an endowment).
• The Robert Schultz farm in Superior Township, which also included grant funds from the federal FRPP program for 49% of the purchase price (total greenbelt contribution: $6,450, plus $23,867 for an endowment).
• A portion of the Drake farm, on the south side of Waters Road in Lodi Township, in partnership with the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which contributed 20% of the purchase price (total greenbelt contribution: $476,165, plus $23,867 for an endowment).

The city received two FRPP grants totaling $396,900 – for the Robbin Alexander farm and Robert Schultz farm. Overall, the city secured an average of 60% matching funds for all greenbelt properties in fiscal 2013, Trocchio said. Since the program started, the city has averaged about 50% in matching funds.

The millage also funds parkland acquisitions. Trocchio reported that the city bought two properties in fiscal 2013, and accepted a donation from Ann Arbor Township – the Braun Nature Area, which is adjacent to the city’s Huron Parkway Nature Area. The purchases were:

• 0.91 acres along Hampstead Lane, adding to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area – at a total cost of $118,944.
• 0.35 acres along Orkney, to add to the Bluffs Nature Area – at a total cost of $120,774.

Annual Greenbelt Report: Commission Discussion

Jennifer Fike asked about projections for future funding from the USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). Ginny Trocchio replied that the latest update she’d heard was that all of the federal easement programs would be folded into one conservation easement program, but that there would continue to be funding for FRPP grants.

Stephanie Buttrey had two issues with this paragraph in the report:

The Greenbelt scoring criteria awards points to applications that provide scenic views, and visibility from major corridors frequently traveled by Ann Arbor residents. Examples of these major corridors are along the highways that surround the city, which are often an entryway into the City, or routes that are frequented by bikers. The scenic value of each of the applications will continue to be a part of the scoring criteria. Furthermore, the strategic blocks encompass major corridors, so an added benefit of forming large blocks of protected land will be preserving critical viewsheds within the Greenbelt District.

Buttrey suggested changing the word “bikers” to “bicyclists.” She also asked for clarification of the term “viewsheds.” Trocchio described a viewshed as the view of large stretches of rural properties as seen from the road. Examples of viewsheds in the greenbelt include sections along Zeeb Road, Joy Road and Whitmore Lake Road, she said.

Catherine Riseng noted that the report mentions that GAC modified its strategic plan in 2012, but it doesn’t indicate how the plan was modified. She suggested including details about how the plan was changed. [An update of the strategic plan was approved by GAC at its April 4, 2013 meeting. Changes include a new section on education and outreach, and a new goal of establishing a greenbelt registry program, to formalize relationships with landowners who aren’t yet part of the greenbelt program, but who are committed to the program’s principles of land preservation. (.pdf of updated strategic plan)]

Fiscal 2013 Financials

Commissioners were also briefed on a financial report for fiscal 2013, related to the open space and parkland preservation millage. [.pdf of financial statements]

For the year ending June 30, 2013, Trocchio reported that net revenues from the millage were $2.626 million. Most of that – $2.141 million of it – came from millage proceeds. The other main revenue source was investment income of $111,137 in FY 2013. That  compared to $176,082 in investment income the previous year.

Expenses for the year were $3.357 million. In addition to $1.227 for debt service, expenses included $1.757 million in greenbelt projects and $242,867 for parkland acquisition.

As of June 30, 2013, the fund balance stood at $8.856 million, with about equal amounts designated for the greenbelt ($4.413 million) and park acquisitions ($4.442 million). The greenbelt program also received $396,900 in reimbursements from the USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), and $5,330 in contributions – primarily a $5,000 gift from Cherry Republic.

Administrative costs of $129,966 in fiscal 2013 equate to 3.9% of total revenues. Administrative costs over the life of the millage are limited by ordinance to be no greater than 6% of revenues.

There was minimal discussion about the financial report. Jennifer Fike asked about the significant amount of expenditures in fiscal year 2011 – $8.3 million, by far the highest of any other year. Trocchio said there were about a dozen deals completed that year, which accounted for the higher expenditures.

Conservation Easements

Prior to the Sept. 5 meeting, Ginny Trocchio – who provides staff support to the greenbelt program – had surveyed commissioners about topics related to the greenbelt that they might want to learn more about. Commissioners had indicated an interest in getting an overview about conservation easements, so Trocchio gave a presentation on that topic on Sept. 5.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who provides staff support for Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program.

Conservation easements are a tool that the city uses to purchase development rights, she explained. It’s a legal agreement that limits the type and amount of development that’s allowed on a property, with the intent of protecting the land as a natural area or as farmland. It’s a perpetual agreement, and remains in place regardless of who owns the land. The easement also allows the entity that holds the easement to monitor it and enforce the terms.

Trocchio noted that conservation easements can only be held by an entity that has conservation as part of its mission.

There are certain things that a conservation easement does not necessarily do, Trocchio explained. It doesn’t require public access to the land, although that can be written into the agreement. For the greenbelt program, most of the protected land is active farmland, she said, and generally it’s not open to the public. An easement doesn’t prohibit or require hunting, or require certain types of farming practices. Nor does an easement prohibit landowners from selling their land, profiting from it, or passing it on to heirs, she said.

To put a value on the conservation easement, two appraisals are done, Trocchio explained. One appraisal is for the fair market value of the property with no easement or other restrictions. The second appraisal assesses what a property is worth with an easement in place. Typically, the cost of purchasing development rights is the difference between these two amounts. There are appraisers who are specifically qualified to do these types of appraisals, she said.

Trocchio talked about the difference between easements that exist on natural areas, compared to easements on agricultural land that’s being worked by the landowner. It’s a static versus dynamic use of the property, she noted.

In some deals, the landowner makes a donation as part of the easement, and gets some tax benefits in return. For example, if the value of an easement is $200,000, the landowner might contribute $80,000 toward that amount, and then sell the development rights for $120,000 to the entity that will hold the easement – like the city of Ann Arbor.

Most of the farmers that participate in the greenbelt program use a “like-kind exchange” under section 1031 of the IRS Code, Trocchio said. The money they receive for a conservation easement would be taxed as capital gains. However, some or all of the funds can be set aside in a 1031 exchange with a third-party agent, and can then be used in the future to buy additional farmland. Funds set aside in a like-kind exchange would be tax-exempt.

Trocchio also described the steps of drafting a conservation easement, explaining that a standard template is used. She’ll meet with the landowner and family members to walk through the property, and talk about any adjustments that need to be made to the standard agreement. The deals are reviewed by the city attorney and the landowner’s attorney, as well as any of the other partners involved. This is one reason why an agreement can take several months to complete, she noted.

It’s important for the language in the agreement to be clear and precise, so that there’s no room for interpretation in the future. It should be consistent with other easements nationally, Trocchio said. The national Land Trust Alliance has standards and practices that have been developed over decades, and that provide consistency in these agreements. The easements also include photographs and maps of the property. Title work must be completed to determine legal ownership.

Jennifer Fike, a greenbelt advisory commissioner, is also finance director for the Huron River Watershed Council.

Elements of the agreement include a statement of conservation values, laying out what the easement is trying to protect. Those might include farmland, certain natural features like wetlands, or specific species of wildlife. The agreement states the conditions under which a landowner must notify the holder of the easement, Trocchio said. For example, if the landowner wants to put up a fence, the city does not need to be notified. However, if a building is proposed, that would trigger notification.

Basic restrictions of an easement typically include prohibitions on: (1) subdividing the property; (2) industrial, commercial or residential use; (3) construction of buildings; paved roads or utilities; (4) dumping; (5) active recreational use; and (6) mining or extracting resources.

Rights that are typically reserved for the landowner include use of the land for agriculture or forestry purposes, passive recreation or education, fences and seasonal structures – like hoop houses, and any existing uses or roads. The owner also has a right to sell or bequeath the property to heirs.

As the holder of the conservation easement, the city of Ann Arbor can transfer the easement to another entity. No mergers are allowed, however – meaning that the city can’t own both the easement and the property. Amendments to the easement are allowed, but they must conform to the conservation values that are stated in the document.

Landowners are allowed to use up to 2% of the easement area for future permanent agriculture-related building, within a specific area that’s designated in the agreement.

After an easement is in place, the city monitors it annually, Trocchio said. Typically that involves walking the property with the landowner to make sure that conditions comply with terms of the agreement. There have been no problems to date with property in the greenbelt program, she reported. Often issues arise after property has changed hands, and the new owners don’t fully understand the easement constraints.

For each easement agreement, the city sets aside funds for an endowment to cover the cost of staff time to monitor enforcement as well as legal costs if the easement is violated. At this point, the total endowment for all greenbelt properties is $647,030.

Conservation Easements: Commission Discussion

Stephanie Buttrey asked about a scenario in which a conservation easement exists on farmland where there are no buildings, but later the farmer decides he or she wants to put a house on the property. Would that be possible?

Catherine Riseng led her first meeting as chair of the greenbelt advisory commission. She was elected to the position at GAC’s July meeting, which she didn’t attend. There was no meeting in August.

No, Trocchio replied – no new residential building is allowed on property that is covered by a conservation easement. Typically before an easement deal is completed, she said, there are discussions about possibly excluding a small portion of the site from being covered by the easement, so that a house could be built there in the future, if desired.

Responding to a query from Jennifer Fike, Trocchio said that a structure is considered permanent if it has a concrete floor, which is an impervious surface that impacts the soil. A hoop house, which simply is placed over the soil, is considered temporary and there are no restrictions on the use of those structures.

Fike also asked about legal challenges, saying she’d heard about a national fund being developed to protect the interests of land conservancies. Trocchio reported that the Land Trust Alliance has been trying to set up a fund for member organizations. It’s important to build relationships with landowners, she added, so that when land is sold, the owner of the easement can be involved and make sure that the new owner of the land understands the conditions of the easement.

Catherine Riseng wondered if any of the landowners in the greenbelt have done like-kind exchanges. Trocchio estimated that over 50% of landowners that have easements in the greenbelt have used like-kind exchanges. The city isn’t typically involved in that, however – it’s a decision of the landowner.

Staff Report

Ginny Trocchio gave a brief staff report during the meeting. She noted that the greenbelt program would be participating in the Sept. 7 HomeGrown Festival from 6-10 p.m. at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Also, a Sept. 21 bus tour of greenbelt-protected land will run from 10 a.m. til 1 p.m. Registration is running slower than in previous years, she said, with about 20 people registered so far. The bus can accommodate about 50 people. The cost is $10. People can register by Friday, Sept. 13, by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

Trocchio also reported that the Ann Arbor city council approved two greenbelt projects at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting: (1) the 20-acre Sheldon and Wolf property in Webster Township on Zeeb Road for a total city contribution of $82,067; and (2) a city contribution of up to $32,200 for two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC in Ann Arbor Township. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission is the lead entity on that deal.

The Oct. 3 meeting of the greenbelt advisory commission will include a driving tour of greenbelt properties, Trocchio noted. Details will be worked out, and might include meeting first in council chambers, if there is any official business to conduct.

Topics for other upcoming meetings will include an overview of entities that partner with the greenbelt program, an update on the Huron River Watershed Council’s bioreserve project, long-term planning for the remaining greenbelt funds, and a joint meeting with the city’s park advisory commission.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session. On Sept. 5, commissioners met in a brief closed session, then emerged and voted on one resolution 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. Parcels are identified only by their application number, with the first four numbers signifying the year in which the application was made.

On Sept. 5, commissioners recommended that the city council approve partnering with Washtenaw County for the purchase of development rights on a property identified in application #2012-11 and contribute up to 25% of the purchase price, not to exceed $37,995.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution, which will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Next meeting: Thursday, Oct. 3, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. This meeting will also likely include a driving tour of greenbelt properties. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] The meetings are open to the public and include two opportunities for public commentary.

Present: Shannon Brines, Stephanie Buttrey, Jean Cares, Jennifer Fike, John Ramsburgh, Catherine Riseng, Christopher Taylor. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Peter Allen, Archer Christian.

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.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

The first deal involved a 20-acre property located in Webster Township. It’s further described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program. The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

The second deal approved by the city council at its Sept. 3 meeting was participation in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

According to the city administrator’s report from the Sept. 3 meeting, there will be a motor coach tour of the city’s greenbelt program’s protected properties on Saturday, Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The cost is $10. People can register by Friday, Sept. 13, by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

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]

From left: Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioners Jennifer Fike and Archer Christian. Fike was attending her first meeting as a GAC member. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the first meeting for the newest commissioner, Jennifer Fike, who replaced Laura Rubin. The last meeting for long-time commissioners Rubin, Dan Ezekiel and Tom Bloomer was on June 6, 2013. Jean Cares, owner of the Dexter Mill, was nominated at the Ann Arbor city council’s July 1 meeting to replace Bloomer, with a confirmation vote expected by the council on July 15.

Also on July 15, John Ramsburgh’s name is expected to be put forward to replace Ezekiel, with a confirmation vote on Aug. 8. If those two appointments go through, all seats on the greenbelt advisory commission would be filled.

Commissioners elected new officers on July 11, unanimously voting for Catherine Riseng as chair and Shannon Brines as vice chair. Both work at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources & Environment. Riseng, an aquatic ecologist, is a research program manager at SNRE, while Brines is manager of SNRE’s environmental spatial analysis (ESA) lab. Brines also runs Brines Farm near Dexter.

At their July 11 meeting, commissioners also received news about the city’s 2013 application to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The city is receiving grants totaling about $220,000 for land preservation of two properties in Lodi Township: (1) a portion of the Donald Drake farm along Waters Road; and (2) the Carol Schumacher farm along Pleasant Lake Road.

Officer Elections, New Commissioners

Officer elections for chair and vice chair of the greenbelt advisory commission are scheduled for the first meeting of the city’s new fiscal year, which began July 1. GAC’s vice chair, Catherine Riseng, was absent from the July 11 meeting but had indicated an interest in serving as chair. Former chair Dan Ezekiel was term limited, and his last meeting was in June.

Shannon Brines, who chaired the July 11 meeting in Riseng’s absence, joked about nominating himself for vice chair but was subsequently nominated by Jennifer Fike for that position.

There were no other nominations.

Outcome: On separate unanimous voice votes, Catherine Riseng and Shannon Brines were elected chair and vice chair, respectively.

Fike, the finance director of the Huron River Watershed Council, attended her first meeting as commissioner since being confirmed by the city council on June 3, 2013. She replaces Laura Rubin, HRWC’s executive director. There are two additional openings: for a farmer to replace Tom Bloomer, and for a general public position to replace Ezekiel. Bloomer, Ezekiel and Rubin were all term limited, with terms ending on June 30.

During GAC’s June 6 meeting, Bloomer had indicated that he had submitted a name for consideration to fill the farmer position.

Shannon Brines was elected vice chair of GAC, and chaired the commission’s July 11 meeting.

Subsequently, Jean Cares was nominated at the city council’s July 1 meeting to replace Bloomer, with a confirmation vote expected by the council on July 15. Cares owns the Dexter Mill, and serves with Bloomer on the Webster Township farmland and open space board.

On July 11, Christopher Taylor – who serves on the Ann Arbor city council and is the council’s representative on GAC – reported that John Ramsburgh’s name will be put forward at the council’s July 15 meeting to replace Ezekiel, with a confirmation vote expected on Aug. 8.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair.

Nominations for service on most city boards and commissions are made by the mayor. However, nominations for service on the greenbelt advisory commission are made by the council.

Manager’s Report

Ginny Trocchio, who provides staff support to the greenbelt program, reported that the city finally received word about the status of a 2013 application to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The city is receiving grants totaling about $220,000 for two properties in Lodi Township: (1) a portion of the Donald Drake farm – 72 acres along Waters Road; and (2) the Carol Schumacher farm – about 100 acres along Pleasant Lake Road.

The city council will be asked to accept these grants at its Aug. 8 meeting, followed by formal recommendations for the actual purchase of development rights later this year. Trocchio hopes to close the deals by the end of 2013.

Trocchio also noted that the greenbelt program will have a table at the Sept. 7 Homegrown Festival in Ann Arbor, and a tentative date of Sept. 21 has been set for the next greenbelt bus tour.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session. On July 11, commissioners met in a closed session that lasted about 35 minutes, then emerged and 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. Parcels are identified only by their application number, with the first four numbers signifying the year in which the application was made.

On July 11, commissioners recommended that the city council amend a previous GAC recommendation regarding property identified in application number 2013-01. The amended recommendation is for the city to partner with Ann Arbor Township on that property and contribute up to $15,333 for the purchase of development rights – an estimated 33% of the purchase price – or to contribute up to $23,000 on the purchase of an easement, if Washtenaw County parks & recreation purchases the property outright.

The second resolution was to recommend that the city partner with Washtenaw County parks & recreation for the purchase of a deed title on a property identified by application number 2013-03 and contribute up to $32,200 toward the purchase price.

Outcome: In two separate votes, commissioners unanimously passed the resolutions. These items will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Next meeting: Thursday, Aug. 1, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] The meetings are open to the public and include two opportunities for public commentary.

Present: Peter Allen, Shannon Brines, Stephanie Buttrey, Archer Christian, Jennifer Fike, Christopher Taylor. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Catherine Riseng.

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.

From left: Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioners Laura Rubin and Archer Christian came to city hall by bike. This was the last meeting for Rubin, who is term limited. She and other outgoing commissioners Dan Ezekiel and Tom Bloomer were honored during GAC’s June 6 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel and Laura Rubin, whose terms end this month, are term-limited. Ezekiel and Rubin are the only remaining members of the original commission, which was formed in 2004. “I’m just really, really proud of what we’ve accomplished, and of what you all will continue to accomplish,” Ezekiel, GAC’s chair, told commissioners at the end of the meeting. “I’m done being on the commission, but I’m not done with land preservation – and I’m sure Tom and Laura feel the same way.”

It was the first meeting for GAC’s newest commissioner, Stephanie Buttrey, who replaced Liz Rother. Jennifer Fike will join GAC next month to replace Rubin, but there are still two remaining vacancies. Anyone who’s interested in applying should contact their city council representative. [.pdf of application form for city boards and commissions]

An ongoing concern emerged during the June 6 meeting related to Civil War Days – a reenactment event being held this weekend at Gordon Hall in the Dexter area. A dispute over spectator parking on the land has prompted Scio Township trustees to move toward rescinding an existing conservation easement and replacing it with a new easement. The new easement would allow for parking, without a requirement to seek permission for parking each year. The property is owned by the Dexter Area Historical Society, a group that was sharply criticized by Bloomer. “Quite frankly, the Dexter Area Historical Society has been an untrustworthy partner from the very beginning,” he said, “and I don’t know why [the township board] thinks they’ll honor a new easement any more than they honored the old one.”

Although the land in question is outside of the greenbelt boundaries, it’s of interest to GAC because of the underlying issue of easement enforcement.

Commissioners were also briefed on a proposed greenbelt registry that’s being developed. The intent is create a way to formalize relationships with landowners who aren’t yet part of the greenbelt program, but who are committed to the program’s principles of land preservation.

Easement Enforcement: Civil War Days

Dan Ezekiel reported that he and Ginny Trocchio had been contacted in late May by the Scio Township land preservation commission, which was “in a bit of a crisis.” The land preservation commissioners were concerned about the conservation easement that Scio Township holds for land owned by the Dexter Area Historical Society (DAHS), where the historic Gordon Hall is located.

The pink arrow marks the location of the Gordon Hall property, where Civil War Days is being held on June 7-9, 2013. Green blocks are properties protected in part through the city of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The green line with red dots is the Ann Arbor greenbelt program boundary for eligible properties. A portion of Webster Township is in the northwest corner of the greenbelt, with Scio Township to the south. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

By way of background, a “conservation easement” is a way for a municipality to preserve land without purchasing it or becoming the owner of the land. A conservation easement is a legally enforceable agreement – between a landowner and a government agency or a land trust – for the purpose of conservation.

Voters in several local municipalities – including the city of Ann Arbor, Webster Township and Scio Township – have approved millages to fund the purchase of development rights (PDR). PDR is a common mechanism for protecting undeveloped land by letting owners keep their property for farming or other specified uses but preventing its development. Development is prevented through a conservation easement.

A conservation easement restricts real estate development, commercial and industrial use, and certain other activities on a property to a level agreed to in the terms of the easement. In the case of the conservation easement on the Gordon Hall property, different parties have different perspectives on what’s allowed under terms of the easement.

Among land preservationists, it’s assumed that there might eventually be violations to terms of the easements. But if those violations happen, they’re more likely to occur when the property changes hands. So, as a part of every land preservation deal, Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program sets aside funds in an endowment, which will be used to cover expenses to monitor and enforce the greenbelt’s conservations easement – by legal action, if necessary.

In the case of the Gordon Hall property, both Scio and Webster townships hold conservation easements on the parcel, which has portions of the property in both townships. For the past two summers, the townships have allowed spectator parking there as part of the DAHS Civil Wars Days – even though land preservationists argue that parking conflicts with terms of the conservation easements. [See Chronicle coverage: "Webster Gives Ground for Civil War Days."] Parking is again allowed this year for the event, which is taking place June 7-9.

GAC commissioner Tom Bloomer – a Webster Township farmer who also serves on that township’s farmland and open space preservation board – had asked GAC to weigh in on the issue prior to last year’s Civil War Days. At GAC’s Jan. 5, 2012 meeting, commissioners passed a resolution encouraging Webster Township board to strictly enforce all of its conservation easements. [.pdf of Jan. 5, 2012 resolution]

Easement Enforcement: Civil War Days – Commission Discussion

At GAC’s June 6, 2013 meeting, Ezekiel noted that even though the land in question is outside of the greenbelt boundaries, it’s of interest because of the underlying issue of easement enforcement.

Dan Ezekiel, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

Each year, Ezekiel said, the historical society has promised to address the problem of parking, but it’s a problem again this year. The Scio Township board was set to pass a waiver to allow parking again on the property, he said, which is why the township’s land preservation commission alerted GAC. The land preservation commission was “really up in arms about this,” Ezekiel said, and wanted a GAC representative to talk to the township board about the importance of defending easements.

The township board met on May 28. Ezekiel and some members of the township’s land preservation commission spoke at the meeting. Ezekiel reported that his remarks focused on telling the board to be careful and not to allow exceptions to the easements, “because then everybody wants one, and you’ve set a precedent.”

According to Ezekiel, the township trustees indicated that they want to rescind the current agricultural conservation easement, and create a new historical easement instead. He said the board passed a resolution to set that in motion, directing their attorney to draft the new easement. The land preservation board members indicated that they could live with this approach, he said, adding that “it’s something we need to keep our eye on and find out what actually does happen out there.”

Bloomer was more critical of the move. “I think this is a huge disappointment and a step backwards,” he said. Pursuing a new easement is no different than changing the old easement. “Quite frankly, the Dexter Area Historical Society has been an untrustworthy partner from the very beginning,” Bloomer said, “and I don’t know why [the township board] thinks they’ll honor a new easement any more than they honored the old one.”

Bloomer said he realized that it was technically none of GAC’s business. But in the past, he noted, greenbelt commissioners have discussed that if any township doesn’t defend its easements, it’s appropriate for Ann Arbor not to partner with them in the future on deals where the township is the lead agency. “I think it’s important for us to take that stand,” he said.

Ezekiel agreed, and he hoped that greenbelt commissioners would continue to keep an eye on this issue, which “can potentially be dangerous for the greenbelt.” The important thing is who holds the easement, he said. The situation is a timely wake-up call for GAC, Ezekiel added – it’s lucky that the situation is occurring outside of the greenbelt boundaries, so that GAC can learn lessons from it without being directly affected.

Right now, Scio and Webster townships are involved, Ezekiel said. But no one knows who’ll be elected in any township, so GAC needs to think carefully about who holds the easements. There are also degrees of risk, he noted. On many easements, the federal government is involved, and the easement language in those situations is very firm. That’s a different situation from the easement with DAHS, he said.

Ezekiel reported that Scio Township supervisor Spaulding Clark had called the situation a mess that was inherited from the previous township board. But Clark doesn’t think the easement language would be defensible in court, according to Ezekiel. That was one reason that Clark wanted to draw up an entirely new easement.

Peter Allen described it as an unusual situation. The Gordon Hall property is not a typical farm, he said. It’s adjacent to the village of Dexter and has an historical house, with events like the Civil War reenactment. He didn’t think it was the kind of “protect-the-easement situation we might face in the future.”

Tom Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer and GAC member.

Bloomer disagreed. The easement with Scio Township is on agricultural land, he noted, while the Gordon Hall historical building is on the Webster Township portion of the property. “There is no historical aspect to the Scio Township portion,” he said. While some people might think the easement language isn’t defensible in court, Bloomer said, it uses the same language that all conservation easements used at the time it was drawn up. “To me, it seems very clear what the intent of that easement is, which is not to infringe upon the conservation values of the agricultural land. I think there’s only one way to read that – and that’s not parking.”

Ezekiel observed that DAHS had been “very happy to take the money at the time [of the easement deal], and they signed the paperwork and went into it with their eyes wide open, and now they are basically reneging.” It shows that an elected board is going to be very reluctant to tangle with someone who is politically powerful, he said, no matter how unpleasant that person is behaving. “It almost sometimes makes township boards look better if they tangle with big, bad old Ann Arbor instead of standing up to their own residents who are violating an easement that they themselves helped draw up, sign, and take money for,” Ezekiel said.

Ezekiel also noted that the Legacy Land Conservancy had secured a legal opinion on the easement, which determined that parking is prohibited under the easement.

Trocchio reported that when this issue initially arose, she reviewed all the easements in which the greenbelt program is involved. There are only two or three instances that don’t involve a federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grant, she said. In those few instances, there are still multiple entities involved that provide multiple layers of protection. However, it’s something to keep an eye on in structuring these deals and partnerships in the future, she said.

Ezekiel said it was good to know that none of the current greenbelt easements are imperiled.

Greenbelt Registry

Commissioners had initially discussed the idea of a greenbelt registry at their April 4, 2013 meeting. On June 6, Ginny Trocchio – a Conservation Fund employee who provides staff support to the greenbelt program under contract with the city – gave an update on the project.

The concept of a greenbelt registry is laid out in the program’s strategic plan:

A land registry program is a listing of the properties that contain “special” natural features or has remained in farmland open space that landowners have voluntarily agreed to protect. This is an oral non-binding agreement between the City of Ann Arbor and the landowner. The landowner can end at any time, and the agreement does not affect the deed. The landowners agree to monitor and protect specific features of the property and notify the City if the landowner is planning on selling the property or if major threats have occurred.

The purpose of the land registry is to identify significant parcels of land and, through voluntary agreements with landowners, take the first step toward protection of the land’s natural resources. Furthermore, a land registry program recognizes landowners for protecting significant open space/natural features. Ultimately, these lands could be protected permanently through a conservation easement.

The landowner, by voluntarily agreeing to register their land, agrees to the following:

• Protect the land to the best of their ability
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any significant changes they are planning or any natural changes that have occurred.
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any intent to sell the property.

Trocchio reported that she’d been working on this project with commissioner Shannon Brines. They first identified which landowners and areas of the greenbelt they’d like to target for participation in the registry. The intent is to contact owners of property that the commission’s strategic plan has identified as a priority, including people that have been contacted in the past but who haven’t yet applied to the greenbelt program or completed a transaction. Trocchio noted that this includes about 20 landowners covering just over 2,400 acres.

In addition, she said, the tentative plan calls for doing a “broader sweep” across the greenbelt, contacting landowners of property that fits the program’s priorities. Those priorities include protecting larger tracts of land – 40 acres or greater – with quality soils for agriculture, and proximity to protected properties. It’s also important to fill in gaps or make connections between existing greenbelt-protected properties, she said. Those gaps are concentrated in the townships of Northfield, Salem, Superior, and Lodi. A lot of larger properties in Scio Township that might fit the greenbelt’s priorities lie outside of the greenbelt boundaries, she noted.

Ginny Trocchio, who provides staff support for the greenbelt program.

Trocchio estimated that it might be possible to protect an additional 6,000 to 7,500 acres during the remainder of the 30-year greenbelt program, assuming a modest annual increase in property values of 3%-4%, as well as the ability to secure matching funds of 25%-50% for these land preservation deals. The registry is a way to move toward this goal.

In terms of implementing a registry, the first step would be outreach, Trocchio said, so that landowners know about it. She showed commissioners a rough draft for a brochure that summarizes aspects of the registry. [.pdf of registry brochure] Public forums would be held, as well as one-on-one meetings with landowners. Trocchio reported that she’s met with several landowners over the past 6-9 months who decided that now isn’t the right time to participate in the greenbelt program, but they might be interested in a registry, she said.

Even though the registry would be a non-binding agreement, Trocchio explained, it’s important to ensure that the greenbelt advisory commission is kept apprised of it. One option is to develop a brief application, including property information and landowner contact information. Staff would review those applications and evaluate how the properties fit within the greenbelt program’s current scoring system, then bring that information to GAC. Trocchio said she’ll be working with the city administrator, Steve Powers, as well as councilmember Christopher Taylor – who serves on GAC – about the best way to inform the city council about this registry.

After landowners are enrolled in the registry, they’ll receive a framed aerial image of their property to thank them for being good stewards of the land and for keeping the land in open space and farmland. Trocchio would be compiling a database of landowners, and would contact the landowners if there are properties near them that become part of the greenbelt program. She’d also inform them of any greenbelt-related events, and would plan to meet with them at least once a year to touch base.

One question that she and Brines had for the full commission: Should landowners who participate in the registry get points for that, when they apply to have their land protected by the greenbelt program? That approach would give the landowners a bump up in priority, compared to non-registry parcels, she noted.

Greenbelt Registry: Commission Discussion

Several commissioners praised the registry. “This is fantastic,” said Peter Allen. “I think this will really open some doors for us.” He clarified with Trocchio that the plan would be to mail brochures to targeted landowners. He wondered whether the mailing would include a map showing the landowner’s specific property, in relation to land that’s already protected by the greenbelt program. Trocchio explained that the brochure will include a map showing protected properties, but it won’t be customized for each landowner. She felt the map would have sufficient detail – and that landowners would be familiar with the area – so that they could discern their land’s relationship to greenbelt properties.

Allen suggested including Trocchio’s name and picture in the brochure, along with her contact information. “To see a face will maybe get them to call you,” he said. Including a link to the greenbelt program’s website would also be helpful. He assumed that landowners would want to do some research before contacting Trocchio.

Allen also urged Trocchio to be more proactive about contacting landowners, rather than relying on a mailing and public meetings – especially for farmers with important parcels. He asked commissioner Tom Bloomer, a farmer from Webster Township, whether such an approach would be too pushy.

“Everyone’s an individual,” Bloomer replied, adding that in general, no single effort will yield results. Some landowners don’t want their neighbors to know what they’re doing, he noted, so they might not come to a public meeting. He recalled that some of the greenbelt program’s best acquisitions have come from people who didn’t attend public forums.

Greenbelt advisory commissioner Shannon Brines of Brines Farm in Webster Township, north of Dexter.

Bloomer said that reaching out in a variety of ways was important, but Trocchio shouldn’t be too aggressive – or landowners will feel targeted. Most people know that the greenbelt program exists, he added, and if they’re interested, they know how to contact Trocchio. “So I wouldn’t push too hard.” Sending out a mailing is fine, he said, but he’s on the fence about whether Trocchio should ask for one-on-one meetings. It depends on the landowner, he said.

Allen suggested the strategy of working with attorneys, accountants and other representatives of landowners – it’s another possible avenue of outreach to consider, he said. Bloomer replied that the initiative should come from the landowner.

Archer Christian asked if there would be a way to publicly honor the registrants. Trocchio said she’d need to talk to the city attorney’s office about whether registered properties could be included in the greenbelt maps. Christian thought perhaps recognition could be given at a greenbelt event.

Christian also wondered if Trocchio was planning to partner with townships in the public forums. How much had Trocchio communicated with township officials about the registry program? Trocchio replied that she hasn’t talked at length with township officials, since the details of the registry are still being worked out. The public forums would likely be held at township halls, she noted, so the townships would certainly be informed.

Catherine Riseng wondered how the greenbelt advisory commission would be involved. Would it be similar to the greenbelt program’s land acquisition process, where proposed properties are presented to GAC for review? It’s still unclear how that would work, Trocchio replied. She said she’d keep the commission up to date about who is applying. If the intent is that these properties might become part of the greenbelt in the future, she added, then it’s important that the properties in the registry meet the greenbelt program’s priorities.

Bloomer noted that Trocchio had asked for feedback about whether to award points to registry participants, if they later apply for the greenbelt program. He thought that awarding points has merit, “as long as it’s not too much.” Awarding points would be a way for landowners to see a real benefit to participating in the registry and maintaining contact with the staff, he said.

Dan Ezekiel described the registry as a best next step for the greenbelt program.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Manager’s Report

Ginny Trocchio, who provides staff support to the greenbelt program, reported that there’s still no word about the status of a 2013 application to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The application is for grants totaling about $202,000 for two properties covering 169 acres.

She also noted that the greenbelt program will have a table at the Sept. 7 Homegrown Festival in Ann Arbor.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session. On June 6, commissioners met in a closed session that lasted about 30 minutes, then emerged and voted on a recommendation 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. Parcels are identified only by their application number, with the first four numbers signifying the year in which the application was made.

On June 6, commissioners recommended that the city council move forward on the purchase of development rights on parcels identified as application number 2013-02 and 2011-13, if federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) funds are received.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously passed the resolution.

Commission Transitions

The June 6 meeting concluded with farewells to three long-time greenbelt advisory commissioners: Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel and Laura Rubin. Their terms end this month, and because they are term-limited they can’t be reappointed. To mark the occasion, commissioners were served pie – pecan and chess – during their closed session.

GAC vice chair Catherine Riseng congratulates Dan Ezekiel, the outgoing chair, for his service.

The outgoing commissioners were also formally honored at the end of their meeting. Ezekiel, who serves as GAC’s chair, noted that the transition is historic because he and Rubin are the only remaining members of the original commission, which was formed in 2004.

Ezekiel first presented a plaque to Bloomer, saying that his expertise about farming had been invaluable. Bloomer, who owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township, recalled that when Mike Garfield left GAC last year, Garfield had commented that this was one of the few endeavors he’d been involved with that went exactly as he thought it should. “I echo that,” Bloomer said. “This has been about as successful as I’d expect a program to be. I’m really grateful to have been a part of it.”

Ezekiel then gave a plaque to Rubin, noting that she had provided leadership as GAC chair for three years of her nine-year service. Rubin said she’d enjoyed serving on GAC in part because it’s been such an effective commission. The last couple of years have been particularly rewarding, she said, because she’s been able to see earlier plans come to fruition. “Especially that first year, we really struggled with ‘What did we pass?’” Rubin said, referring to the 2003 voter-approved open space and parkland preservation millage. “What was the expectation from the public in terms of farmland and open space and anti-sprawl – all the issues that were wrapped up with the greenbelt initiative?” She was proud of how far it’s come.

Catherine Riseng, GAC’s vice chair, presented Ezekiel with a plaque in honor of his nine years on the commission. Ezekiel echoed the remarks of Bloomer and Rubin, saying he felt that the commission’s collective decisions were better than what any one person could have decided. He said Rubin, Garfield and Jennifer Santi Hall had led the commission with wisdom and integrity when they served as chairs, and that he had tried to walk in their footsteps. He felt that Riseng would continue that same vision and leadership.

Ann Arbor voters acted wisely and presciently in approving the parks and greenbelt millage in 2003, Ezekiel said, and it had been a bold leap. Ann Arbor was the first community to levy a tax to protect open space and farmland outside the actual boundaries of the community, he said. Since then, there’s been a lot of progress to convert the greenbelt dream into reality. “It’s been a really interesting and exciting journey.”

The greenbelt in fine shape, Ezekiel said. Over 4,000 acres of farmland and open space have been preserved within an hour’s bike ride of downtown Ann Arbor. Matching funds from many sources have leveraged Ann Arbor’s taxpayer dollars, and three local townships – as well as Washtenaw County – have land preservation millages, too.

The registry is a logical next step to bring more properties into the pipeline, Ezekiel said. He thanked Ginny Trocchio and Peg Kohring of The Conservation Fund for their competence and professionalism, saying they are trusted by the greenbelt stakeholders. He praised the city council for expanding the greenbelt boundaries twice, and cited the program’s robust endowment that will help support the defense against easement violations in the future.

From left: Greenbelt advisory commissioners Peter Allen and Tom Bloomer, who is removing his commemorative plaque from its plastic sheath.

Even though no one predicted it, Ezekiel said, the greenbelt program was well-positioned – because of its dedicated funding source and staff – to take advantage of the drop in land values. No one could have predicted how the past nine years turned out, he said, and the next nine years will probably be just as unpredictable. But Ezekiel was quite optimistic that people will look back on the GAC’s work and say it was wise to have protected the greenbelt’s open space and farmland.

“I’m just really really proud of what we’ve accomplished, and of what you all will continue to accomplish,” Ezekiel concluded. “I’m done being on the commission, but I’m not done with land preservation – and I’m sure Tom and Laura feel the same way.”

The outgoing commissioners received a round of applause.

Riseng told her fellow commissioners that she felt quite anxious: “We’re losing our brain trust.” She thanked the three commissioners for their work in laying such a strong foundation for the greenbelt program.

Assuming that GAC follows its custom, Riseng, as vice chair, will likely become GAC chair when the commission elects officers at its July 11 meeting.

Jennifer Fike, the finance director of the Huron River Watershed Council, was confirmed by the city council on June 3, 2013 to replace Rubin – HRWC’s executive director – on GAC. There are two additional openings: for a farmer to replace Bloomer, and for a general public position to replace Ezekiel. During the June 6 meeting, Bloomer indicated that he had submitted a name for consideration to fill the farmer position, but Trocchio said no one has applied. Bloomer said he’d tell the interested party that she would need to submit a formal application.

Anyone who’s interested in applying should contact their city council representative. [.pdf of application form for city boards and commissions] Meetings for the commission are scheduled monthly, typically on the first Thursday of the month.

Next meeting: Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] The meetings are open to the public and include two opportunities for public commentary.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Shannon Brines, Stephanie Buttrey, Archer Christian, Dan Ezekiel, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Christopher Taylor.

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.

The entrance to Recreation Park in Ypsilanti, where Rutherford Pool is located. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners also took steps that could lead to spending over $1.713 million on natural areas preservation. They voted to move forward with the acquisition of three deals for the county’s natural areas preservation program: 17 acres in Scio Township ($55,000); about 245 acres in Northfield Township (about $1.4 million); and 65 acres in Freedom Township ($420,000). The latter two purchases were approved contingent on completing due diligence assessments, followed by final approval from the commission.

In addition, WCPARC approved an initial step in replacing the HVAC system at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center on Washtenaw Avenue, and heard reports on upgrades at several other facilities. Those include the nearly-completed major improvements and expansion of water parks at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. Both are set to open Memorial Day weekend, kicking off WCPARC’s summer season.

In other news related to Ypsilanti projects, WCPARC director Bob Tetens reported that the Ypsilanti city council had recently passed a resolution reaffirming support for the east county recreation center project, proposed in the Water Street site near the Huron River. Tetens also presented a report on WCPARC’s marketing and communications program, which staff have expanded into new venues – including AATA buses. The effort is partly in preparation for a millage renewal coming in 2014.

Commissioners also discussed the desire to add another off-leash dog park in addition to Swift Run, which the county runs in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. Interest is especially keen in light of Ann Arbor’s difficulty in finding a new dog park location. Some commissioners want to include a water element where dogs could play. Jan Anschuetz put it this way: “We’ve done so much to provide water recreation for people – now let’s do it for the dogs.”

Natural Areas Preservation Program

The May 14 agenda included three proposals related to the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP). Tom Freeman – former deputy director of WCPARC who now serves as a consultant for NAPP projects – presented all three proposals.

The commission’s meeting packet included a Nov. 13, 2012 memo from the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC), which makes recommendations on the purchase of natural areas. The memo recommended property acquisitions for the current round (round 12). [.pdf of Nov. 13 NATAC memo] The memo ranked properties in five priority levels: highest (proceed to acquire as appropriate); second (of high interest if a partnership is possible); third (high interest, consider acquiring a portion); fourth (of high interest but requires additional research); and lowest (withdraw from further consideration).

The proposals on the May 14 agenda related to properties that had received NATAC’s highest or second-priority rankings.

NAPP is funded with a countywide millage of 0.2409 mill, which generates about $3 million a year and is in effect through 2021. NAPP has preserved about 2,500 acres of land – natural areas and farmland – since its inception in 2000.

NAPP: Sloan Property

The 17-acre Sloan property is located in Scio Township on the west side of Baker Road, south of the village of Dexter. It deserves protection, Freeman said, for its most significant natural feature: Mill Creek and its extensive floodplain, which both the township and WCPARC want to protect.

Map of the Sloan property in Scio Township, which was included in the WCPARC meeting packet.

The township and WCPARC collaborated in 2012 to purchase an adjacent 35 acres from the Sloans for $280,000, or roughly $8,000 per acre. A state Dept, of Natural Resources Trust Fund grant provided 75% of that cost, and WCPARC and Scio Township split the rest. Freeman explained that during the process of that first purchase, contamination on part of the site was discovered. He said the owner would use part of the proceeds from the current sale to clean up the contamination, which was related to the former use of the site for a nursery.

The Sloan property was categorized by NATAC as a second priority. The recommendation was that WCPARC provide $55,000 – or half the purchase price – and collaborate with Scio Township, which would pay the other half. Scio Township would acquire title to the property and assume management and stewardship responsibilities. Freeman reported that an appraisal found the property worth $110,000, or about $6,322 per acre. In addition, WCPARC staff obtained a phase 1 environmental assessment that found no recognized environmental condition. Also provided to commissioners were a boundary survey, legal description and certified survey drawing.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation that WCPARC authorize committing $55,000 toward the purchase of the Sloan property, which will be matched with an equal amount from Scio Township. A written agreement with Scio Township will spell out the township’s responsibility to pay all development expenses.

NAPP: Primeau Property

The Primeau property – 66 acres in Freedom Township – was also recommended for acquisition. The property consists of two adjacent parcels, each 33 acres, on the east side of Ellsworth Road, north of Haab Road and south of Parker Road in the northeast section of Freedom Township. NATAC rated this property in the highest priority.

A tributary of Mill Creek dissects the property, which has a diversity of land types and steep slopes, with high quality woodlands on the upper areas that are 950 feet high, according to a staff report. The lower areas contain wetlands.

Freeman explained that NATAC was using, for the first time, a bioreserve map that the Huron River Watershed Council had developed. This map uses various criteria – including size; the presence of wetlands, rivers or lakes; potential to contain groundwater recharge areas; and the potential to harbor a high diversity of ecosystems. The map shows that almost 100% of the Primeau property is categorized as high quality. In addition, Freeman said, the woodland on the property is very high quality, with a clear understory unhindered by invasive species and trees of various ages. Commissioner Janis Bobrin expressed appreciation for use of the bioreserve map.

Williams and Associates appraised the property at $420,000, or about $6,383 per acre.

NAPP: Primeau Property – Commission Discussion

During WCPARC’s discussion, Freeman expressed confidence in the accuracy of the appraisal, considering the property is in Freedom Township.

Tom Freeman at the WCPARC May 14, 2013 meeting.

WCPARC director Bob Tetens explained that because of the new flexibility in use of NAPP funds, staff have been developing a plan for stewardship and maintenance, and looking for opportunities to have other entities take on long-term costs such as developing and maintaining parking lots. [A change in the NAPP ordinance, approved by the county board on Sept. 19, 2012, allows WCPARC discretion in dividing the use of its millage funds between purchase and maintenance/stewardship. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "County Parks & Rec System Plans for Future."]

WCPARC president Robert Marans, in response to a question, described the criteria that Huron Clinton Metroparks use to purchase additional land: they only buy land consistent with their master plan for each park. That is different from NAPP’s statutory purpose, which is to preserve natural areas, not to create parks. To further clarify the difference between use of park money and use of NAPP money, Tetens used the example of the still-pending proposal to use park funds to purchase part of the Trolz property on the west side of the county to create a horse trail. [For background on that proposal, see Chronicle coverage of WCPARC's Nov. 12, 2012 meeting.]

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation to authorize preparation of a purchase agreement for the Primeau property for $420,000, contingent upon completion of all necessary due diligence examination of the property, and the commission’s final approval.

NAPP: Ramsey, Lippert, and Carr Properties

Three properties in Northfield Township – the Ramsey, Lippert and Carr parcels, totaling 256 acres – are being treated as one, Freeman explained, because the owners are using one realtor and the properties are adjacent. The land is located just east of Whitmore Lake on the border with Livingston County, along a section of Seven Mile Road that runs at an angle rather than the road’s primary east-west orientation.

Map showing potential land acquisition in Northfield Township for the county’s natural areas preservation program.

The exact acreage that WCPARC might purchase is not yet clear, because two of the three owners want to retain part of their land. The Lipperts own 111 acres and want to keep about 11, selling 100. The Carrs want to keep “a little,” Freeman said, perhaps one acre on Seven Mile of the 80 they own. The Ramseys are willing to sell their entire 69 acres.

Freeman described why the property is worth preserving. One reason is the large adjacent acreage, which is valuable in itself to keep habitat intact. Another factor is the ability to access all three properties from a single parking lot. In addition, the quality of the land – as measured by the Huron River Watershed Council’s bioreserve map – is high. Freeman said this will provide a worthwhile educational opportunity for Whitmore Lake schools, and be a resource for the whole northeast section of the county. He also noted a drawback he discovered while exploring a boggy area on foot – there’s a lot of poison sumac, which “gave me the worst case I’ve ever had.”

Bosserd Appraisal Services provided a value of $5,804 per acre. For the 248 acres that Freeman described, the purchase price would total $1,439,392.

NAPP: Ramsey, Lippert, and Carr Properties – Commission Discussion

Commission discussion focused on the dangers of poison sumac, which Freeman promised to address in three ways: placing trails where the sumac is not present; using boardwalks; and putting up warning signs with photos.

Discussion also brought out details about what portion of the property two of the owners want to retain. Carr wants to keep an acre on Seven Mile Road. Commissioner Dan Smith pointed out that this portion of the land will soon be improved – it has a sewer running along it now and is zoned for quarter-acre lots. Freeman described conversations he has had with township planners, and he is aware of the potential for more traffic on Seven Mile.

Finally, questions about NAPP’s fund balance brought out that there is plenty to cover the proposed $1.4 million purchase. The fund balance is about $10.2 million, Tetens said.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation to authorize staff to prepare purchase offers for all three properties in Northfield Township at a price of $5,804 per acre, contingent on completion of necessary due diligence and the commission’s final approval.

Ypsilanti Projects

The commission discussed two projects at their May 14 meeting related to the city of Ypsilanti: (1) a proposal to grant the city $150,000 for Rutherford Pool, and (2) the proposed east county recreation center.

Ypsilanti Projects: Rutherford Pool

The topic of Rutherford Pool came up in WCPARC’s last two meetings when commissioners asked about the status of the project to replace the pool. Most recently, it was discussed at the commission’s meeting on April 9, 2013. The community pool, which is more than 40 years old, is located on the eastern end of Recreation Park at 975 North Congress Street.

On May 14, WCPARC director Bob Tetens recommended that WCPARC rescind its earlier decision to grant $50,000 and loan $75,000 to the project. Instead, his recommendation was now to provide a grant of $150,000 for the pool replacement. [.pdf of staff memo on Rutherford Pool]

County parks & rec commissioner Fred Veigel, who also serves on the county road commission, lives in Ypsilanti.

By way of background, the Friends of Rutherford Pool (FoRP) entered into an agreement with the city of Ypsilanti in 2003 to take over responsibility for the pool’s daily operation, maintenance and improvement, because the city no longer had the financial resources for that. Tetens told commissioners that by 2010, everyone realized the pool needed major work. Natatorium staff from Eastern Michigan University and pool staff from Ann Arbor parks & recreation had assisted in assessing the pool and concluded that it had to be replaced.

The FoRP began to raise money and to work on a design for a new pool. They secured grants from multiple foundations, corporations, community leaders, and citizens. [As of May 17, the FoRP website stated they are within $51,000 of their goal.] In August 2011, WCPARC agreed unanimously to provide $50,000 as a grant and $75,000 as a bridge loan. The city of Ypsilanti and FoRP also obtained a $300,000 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund grant.

Now, Tetens said, the cost of a replacement pool is more than originally anticipated – more than $900,000. He indicated that based on an outpouring of support from the community, this project is important. The pool is consistent with and complementary to broader efforts by the county parks & recreation commission to enhance recreational opportunities and the quality of life in the community. In addition, the debt repayment on the $75,000 bridge loan could provide a hardship for meeting the pool’s operating expenses.

Tetens said that because FoRP has succeeded in obtaining an MDNRTF grant, commissioners should consider making a contribution consistent with their past practice of providing an amount half or more of that state grant, or $150,000.

Commissioner Fred Veigel moved to rescind the original grant and loan totaling $125,000, and to agree to contribute $150,000 to the city of Ypsilanti to help complete the Rutherford Pool project. Commissioner Janis Bobrin seconded the motion.

Ypsilanti Projects: Rutherford Pool – Commission Discussion

Discussion first focused on whether the FoRP had a business plan that would adequately operate, maintain and fund future needs of the pool. What is the plan and who is responsible for carrying it out? Commissioners asked whether they could attach a condition to the WCPARC grant. The condition would be that there must be a business plan that meets approval of WCPARC staff.

Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Janis Bobrin and Bob Marans all spoke in favor of having such a plan. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore, Jr. promised to sit down and “make sure we have everything we need.” Near the end of the discussion, all agreed that what they wanted was an agreement that ensures the new pool will not need replacement “until after we are all dead,” as Bobrin put it. This brought the discussion to a close, with agreement that the motion needed no amendment.

Outcome: Unanimous agreement to rescind the earlier grant of $50,000 and $75,000 loan, and to approve a grant of $150,000.

Ypsilanti Projects: East County Recreation Center

Tetens provided a brief update on this project to build a recreation center, similar to the Meri Lou Murray Rec Center in Ann Arbor, on the northwest corner of the 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area on Michigan Avenue. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Public Gives Input On East County Rec Center"]

The Ypsilanti city council recently approved sale of property on the northeast corner of the site for a Family Dollar store. Tetens reported that the city council passed a resolution on May 7 supporting the rec center project, with only one negative vote – from Lois Richardson. The next step, he said, would be to build a new pedestrian bridge, then in 2014 construct a section of the Border-to-Border (B2B) trail on the east side of the property along the Huron River. Finally, in 2015, the recreation center would be constructed. Tetens reported that the city of Ypsilanti’s revised grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources – to extend the B2B into the Water Street redevelopment area – is under review.

Tetens said he expected to have the market study, being carried out by the Ann Arbor YMCA, for the June WCPARC meeting. [The Ann Arbor YMCA is partnering with WCPARC on this project.] Bob Marans said he had told Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber that the rec center would be to Ypsilanti what Frank Gehry’s museum was to Bilbao, Spain, and that the community planning meetings had shown strong support for the project. Commissioner Jan Anschuetz said “people were furious” over recent newspaper articles that said officials involved with Ypsilanti’s master plan revision were reconsidering the size, location, and feasibility of the rec center. She noted that having council reaffirm its support was critical.

Projects and Activities

Each month, WCPARC staff provide updates to commission members about ongoing improvements to WCPARC’s facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. The reports include development projects, special initiatives, interpretive programs, and other happenings. Collectively, they provide an overview of the extent of WCPARC’s activities.

Projects & Activities: Meri Lou Murray Rec Center HVAC

Deputy director Coy Vaughn provided a description of the problem – that the HVAC system at the MLM rec center on Washtenaw Avenue is 23 years old and wearing out, requires too much staff attention, and uses too much energy. The proposed solution is a three-step replacement of the existing system. [.pdf of staff memo regarding rec center HVAC system]

The total cost to heat and cool the building in 2012, Vaughn said, was $76,525. A new control system would save about $23,000 a year and cost $108,000, returning the investment in 4.7 years.

The first step is to replace the pneumatic control system with a digital system, which Vaughn proposed to do after moving forward with a request for proposals (RFP). This step is needed partly because it’s “getting hard to find people who can fix pneumatic systems,” he said.

The second step would be to reset and calibrate the dampers and valves in the system, also known as balancing the system, he said, and would cost about $13,000. The third step – replacing the air-cooled chiller for $94,000 – would reduce operating costs from 2012’s $26,557 by an estimated $3,186 annually. Vaughn proposed to do the last step after issuing an RFP in the fall. The total cost, he said, was well within the budgeted $200,000.

There was no substantive discussion on this item.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation to move forward with an RFP to install and calibrate a new digital controls system at the MLM rec center, and to authorize a second RFP to be issued this fall for the installation of a new chiller.

Projects & Activities: Marketing and Communications Report

In previous meetings, WCPARC director Bob Tetens had promised a staff report on renewed marketing and communications plans, partly to promote WCPARC’s offerings, and partly in preparation for a millage renewal coming in 2014. Meghan Bonfiglio, planner for WCPARC, prepared the report but was unable to attend the May 14 meeting, so Tetens presented the report.

He began by reminding commissioners that there are over 1 million visits annually to WCPARC facilities. Marketing covers a wide range of media: internet ads, paid ads in print media, social media; printed material such as brochures and maps; sponsorship of activities, programs and events; news stories; and videos. Starting this summer, WCPARC will have an ad on a large AATA bus for one month, costing $800. The bus goes on varied routes and so it will be seen around the AATA’s service area.

WCPARC uses social media: Facebook, Yelp, LivingSocial, and Groupon. WCPARC also provides promotional items, such as towels, magnets, bags, and bottles to celebrate events, including the opening of new trails, preserves, or park amenities.

Sponsorships are another means of marketing. Those include the kids’ zone at Chelsea’s Sights & Sounds festival, the Ypsilanti Pops Festival and Heritage Festival, Huron River Day, and events such as summer concerts, mountain bike and Fat Tire bike races, winter hikes, log cabin day at Parker Mill Park, geocaching, and the Walk & Wag event on behalf of the Humane Society of Huron Valley.

Videos include the history of WCPARC, which is available on the WCPARC website and YouTube. Staff have started to work on new, shorter videos, one for each park.

Tetens concluded by saying that the message – which is now “Here’s what you can do at our parks and preserves” – will be modified as the millage renewal gets closer.

Outcome: After brief positive comments, WCPARC accepted the report for filing.

Images of blue herons on a fence at the new Independence Lake Park spray-and-play zone, called Blue Heron Bay.

Projects & Activities: Independence Lake

Independence Lake Park has undergone substantial improvements in its water park, which is now a separate section called Blue Heron Bay. Most of the work is done, Tetens reported, as Vaughn showed slides of the new buildings, two new 12-foot-high water slides and other water features, improved picnic area, and parking. Signage will soon go up, and all is on track for a grand opening on Memorial Day weekend.

Projects & Activities: Rolling Hills

Rolling Hills park and water park have also been improved and enlarged. The new buildings – including a new ticket booth and bathhouse – as well as mechanical systems are complete, and the three new 32-foot-high water slides are being installed. The overall effect, Tetens said, is to “make the water park more open and inviting, since the new entrance brings you in facing the wave pool.” There is a new parking lot and new landscaping, which includes three acres of sod served by sprinklers. Rolling Hills will also open Memorial Day weekend.

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

Projects & Activities: Sharon Mills Park

Vaughn reported that a new pedestrian bridge at Sharon Mills Park is set on the abutments, and final restoration work on disturbed soil is in progress. The park’s former bridge was built as part of the dam, he explained, and when it deteriorated staff determined it would be more cost effective over the long run to replace the bridge rather than restoring it.

Projects & Activities: Other Updates

Commissioners were provided with brief updates on a range of other items:

• Border-to-Border trail: Staff continue to work with the village of Dexter and Michigan Dept. of Transportation on the final 1/8-mile extension of segment D1, the River Terrace Trail, to connect the trail to the village at Central Street.
• Trinkle Marsh Preserve: The landscape restoration for the parking lot, and observation decks, are nearly done.
• Spike Preserve: A third section of boardwalk through a portion of wetlands was completed by Cross Lake Construction.
• Draper-Houston Meadows Preserve: The restoration of the boardwalk and bridge railing is in progress.

Financial Reports

Each month, WCPARC receives a report on claims to be paid that month, and on expenditures, income and fund balances for parks and recreation, and for the natural areas preservation program (NAPP).

Financial Reports: Claims in May 2013

Total claims for May were $408,280. Most of that was for parks and recreation, with expenditures of $387,741. By far the greatest expense was $270,058 in capital improvements, most of those at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. NAPP expenditures totaled $20,539. Expenses for NAPP were related to due diligence activities pursuant to purchase of new land. [.pdf of May claims report]

Outcome: Unanimous approval for paying these claims.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance Statements

According to the fund balance statement as of April 30, 2013, parks and recreation income for the year to date was $6,458,836. Most income – $5,808,410 – is property tax revenue, with another $617,278 coming from fees and services. Expenses were $3,376,544.

WCPARC also budgets for an operating reserve of $6.7 million and funding commitments for partnerships of $925,000, which are recorded as expenses on the balance sheet. The beginning fund balance, on Jan. 1, 2013, was $12,950,815. The fund balance as of April 30, 2013 is $8,408,106. [.pdf of parks & rec fund balance statement]

The natural areas preservation program, which began the year with a fund balance of $10,263,644, has received $2,986,307 in revenue and spent $733,990, for a new fund balance of $12,515,960 as of April 30. [.pdf of NAPP fund balance statement]

Outcome: Unanimous approval to receive and file the financial reports.

Recreation Reports

WCPARC staff regularly report on the number of participants and amount of revenue at its operations that count participants and revenue. During the winter, the only facility that reports this information is the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center. In the spring and fall, the report includes Pierce Lake golf course. During the summer, Independence Lake and Rolling Hills parks are included.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

Activity at the rec center has remained “flat,” according to WCPARC director Bob Tetens. Total participation as of the end of April was 125,106 this year. That compares to 124,824 last year and 133,430 in 2011. Revenue, however, was up this year compared to the last two years: $505,474 in 2013, $464,897 in 2012, and $500,927 in 2011.

The report also counts county residents and non-residents. Among membership users, non-residents remained a small percentage: 1.94% this year, compared to 0.85% last year and 0.47% in 2011. Non-residents were a much higher percentage of daily pass users, however: 7.15% this year, up from 5.34% last year and 4.88% in 2011. [.pdf of MLM rec center report]

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

Weather, of course, has a huge effect on golf participation, Tetens reminded everyone. That 2012 had better spring golfing weather than the year before or after is obvious from the number of greens users, he noted: 2,534 this year, 3,268 in 2012, and 1,391 in 2011. Total revenue showed the same impact: $59,396 so far this year, compared to $86,166 last year and $33,657 in 2011. [.pdf of Pierce Lake golf course report]

Outcome: Unanimous approval to receive and file the reports.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting, commissioners have the opportunity to raise issues or concerns. Here are highlights from the May 14 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Parks

Jan Anschuetz began by praising the dog park at Swift Run as wonderful, appreciated, and heavily used. But, she noted, it has flaws – there is no place for shelter from the wind, sun, or rain, for example. She expressed a hope for a gazebo.

Anschuetz acknowledged that pounding posts into the ground was not possible [because Swift Run was formerly a landfill and produces noxious gases]. WCPARC director Bob Tetens acknowledged the dog park’s shortcomings, but emphasized the danger of gas. Staff had, he said, been thinking about other places to establish dog parks, especially after the recent difficulty that the Ann Arbor parks staff has had in finding an acceptable spot for one in the city. [A proposal to place a new city dog park in Ann Arbor's West Park has met resistance from local residents. For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Parks Agenda: Downtown, Dogs, Dams, DTE." The Swift Run dog park, located at Ellsworth and Platt, is a joint project of WCPARC and the city of Ann Arbor.]

After other commissioners expressed a desire for another dog park, especially one with water, Tetens said that staff are looking at Rolling Hills, or perhaps off Medford at the County Farm Park – in Ann Arbor, near the recreation center.

Anschuetz closed the discussion with this: “We’ve done so much to provide water recreation for people – now let’s do it for the dogs.”

Communications & Commentary: MLM Rec Center

Board president Bob Marans said he had noticed the importance of the Meri Lou Murray recreation center as a social or gathering place for senior citizens. It is more than a place to exercise and has great importance to many people for that reason, he said, adding that this is another “tribute to the building.” [Marans is an architect who taught at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.]

He suggested collecting comments and oral histories to use in publicizing the value of the facility in marketing, and as a tribute to Meri Lou Murray’s leadership. Murray, who was instrumental in founding the WCPARC, died last year.

Present: Pat Anschuetz, Janis Bobrin, Robert Marans, Nelson Meade, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Fred Veigel.

Absent: Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner.

Staff Present: Director Bob Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 11, 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!