Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

If the parcels are available for sale, the council has also requested that the park advisory commission review the two properties and advise the city council by  Oct. 1, 2014 about whether they are desirable for city purchase using parkland acquisition funds and private contributions.

Originally on the agenda was just an item related to the Burton Road property, brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). During the meeting, the resolution was amended – at the request of Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – to include the Glendale property. The deliberations that led to the amendment and that resulted in the final wording of the resolution are reflected in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

The Burton Road property is the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

Kunselman had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution for the Burton Road property. The idea would be to use funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Aerial view of proposed Glendale Condominiums site, south of Jackson Avenue.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The Glendale property is the site of a proposed development that was just recently in front of the city planning commission on July 1, 2014, but postponed. That meeting drew 22 speakers at the public hearing on the project, nearly all in opposition to it.

The plan calls for removing two vacant single-family houses and building six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning – R4B (multi-family residential) – up to 39 units would be allowed by right. Each unit would include two garage parking spaces, with 12 additional surface spaces on the site. That’s double the number of spaces required by zoning.

The amendment put forward by Warpehoski to include the 312 Glendale parcel in Kunselman’s resolution indicated that the estimated land value of the 2.64-acre parcel is $345,200.

On the combined resolution for both the Burton Road and the Glendale parcels, the vote was 8-2, with dissent from mayor John Hieftje and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) was absent due to illness.

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

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]

The parcel purchased by the city lies mostly within the floodplain or floodway as this image shows.

The city’s share of the purchase price is $82,500, with the remaining $27,500 contributed from Washtenaw County parks & recreation. Including the $13,000 in closing and due diligence costs, the city of Ann Arbor’s share amounted to $95,500, which will be paid from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage proceeds.

The parcel is mostly in the floodway, as Millers Creek runs through it. Future costs associated with maintaining the site will include management by the city’s natural area preservation staff, which would include ecological burns and removal of non-native species.

Purchase of the Meadowcreek Drive property marks the third similar acquisition by the city in about the last seven months, using funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. At its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council authorized the acquisition of a parcel on Hampstead Lane, adjoining the Kuebler Langford Nature Area. And at its March 4, 2013 meeting, the council authorized the acquisition of a roughly 0.357-acre piece of vacant land located on Orkney, adjoining the Bluffs Nature Area.

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]

Map showing a parcel on Orkney approved for acquisition by the city – the narrow parcel that’s highlighted in yellow.

The parcel is located immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature Area – in the north part of the city, near the confluence of North Main, M-14 and Huron River Drive. The parcel is intended to provide an additional access point to the nature area, from the west.

The total proposed appropriation of $128,000 in open space millage funds for purchasing the Orkney parcel included $3,000 in closing costs and $10,000 in due diligence. An environmental assessment would be done before the closing.

The vote on the Orkney parcel had been postponed from the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. Postponement came in the context of objections from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on the cost of the land, and questions from other councilmembers about the need for access from the west side of the nature area.

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]

For the two parcels outside the city, the council approved applications for matching federal funds to purchase development rights – for the 72-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 100-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The federal match is only up to $5,000 per acre.

Inside the city, the council postponed the $115,000 purchase of a roughly 0.357-acre piece of vacant land located at 1240 Orkney, with a current SEV (state equalized value) of $49,200. [SEV is based on 50% of market value.] The parcel is located immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature area – in the north part of the city, near the confluence of North Main, M-14 and Huron River Drive. The parcel is intended to provide an additional access point to the nature area, from the west. [.jpg of Orkney parcel adjacent to Bluffs Nature area]

The total proposed appropriation of $128,000 in open space millage funds for purchasing the Orkney parcel included $3,000 in closing costs and $10,000 in due diligence. An environmental assessment would be done before the closing.

The purchase was postponed, however, because councilmembers questioned the price of the parcel as well as the need for additional access to the Bluffs Nature Area. The postponement is until March 4.

The proposed Orkney parcel acquisition is similar to one made last year for a parcel on Hampstead Lane immediately adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area. Like the Bluffs, Kuebler Langford is located in the northern part of the city. [.jpg of area showing cluster of nature areas in the city's north side] [.jpg image of map showing city-acquired parcel adjoining Kuebler Langford Nature Area]

The roughly 0.91-acre Hampstead Lane parcel was determined to have a fair market value of $110,000, with an additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence.

The council authorized the acquisition of the Hampstead Lane parcel at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting.

Another parallel between the Oct. 15, 2012 meeting and the Feb. 19, 2013 meeting was the consideration of development rights for the Drake Farm. In October, the council had given approval for the acquisition of development rights for the southern part of the farm. On that occasion, the requested expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 went to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land was $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County parks & recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

What the council approved on Feb. 19 for the Drake Farm was an application to the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for matching funds to acquire development rights to the northern part of the farm. When the city failed to win an FRPP award for the farm as a whole, it divided the property – because the northern part is very suitable for agricultural production, and the city felt its chances were very good for winning an FRPP grant for just that portion of the farm. The Drake property had been mentioned recently at the Feb. 7, 2013 meeting of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

If the city wins the FRPP matching grants, the item will likely come before the city council in June.

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

The city had issued a request for proposals (RFP) in early November, with a Nov. 28 deadline for responses. [.pdf of management RFP] Only one proposal had been received – from The Conservation Fund.

The Conservation Fund has held that contract since the greenbelt program launched. The current three-year contract ends on Jan. 15, 2013. The nonprofit is headquartered in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Ginny Trocchio is the nonprofit’s Ann Arbor staff member.

The current contract was approved by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 21, 2009. It authorized $119,565 in 2010, with two one-year renewal options for $113,661 in 2011 and $106,797 in 2012. The Conservation Fund also was the only bidder for that request for proposals (RFP).

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]

Staff and members of the Ann Arbor greenbelt and park advisory commissions at a joint meeting on Nov. 1, 2012. From left: Colin Smith, Shannon Brines, Archer Christian, Peter Allen, Tim Doyle, Laura Rubin, Alan Jackson.  (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier this month, members from both commissions met in a joint session to get a financial update from staff and learn more about the roles and priorities of the greenbelt and parks.

The greenbelt program uses about two-thirds of the millage proceeds. By the end of 2012, about 4,200 acres will have been protected around the outskirts of Ann Arbor. When the program began, the expectation was that it would fund protection for between 3,500 to 4,500 over the life of the 30-year millage. But because the economic downturn has lowered the cost of land, the program has protected more land – primarily through the purchase of development rights – than originally anticipated. Land that previously was valued at about $16,000 per acre is now closer to $4,000, with the likelihood of even lower costs in the coming year.

The last joint meeting of these groups was held in June of 2011, but membership on the groups has changed over the last year and a half. The park advisory commission in particular has seen considerable turnover since then. Earlier this year PAC members Gwen Nystuen, David Barrett, Sam Offen and Doug Chapman left the commission, either because they were term-limited or did not seek re-appointment. New members are Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson and Missy Stults. New to GAC this year is Archer Christian, replacing long-time member Mike Garfield, who was term-limited. Both Garfield and Christian are executives at the nonprofit Ecology Center.

The Nov. 1 discussion among commissioners was wide-ranging. Among the topics covered were the need to provide connections between existing parks, potential for recreational use of greenbelt-protected land, farming trends, and protections for both greenbelt property and parkland. For this report, the conversations are summarized and grouped thematically. The meeting began with a staff update – and that’s where this report begins, too.

Annual Update

Ginny Trocchio is a staff member of The Conservation Fund, who manages Ann Arbor’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs under contract with the city. She typically gives separate financial and activity reports to the two commissions, but delivered the report to both groups at their joint meeting on Nov. 1. The reports covered the most recent fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2012. [.pdf file of activity report][.pdf file of financial report]

Trocchio also reviewed the greenbelt program’s strategic plan, which was updated earlier this year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Commission Briefed on Strategic Plan"] [.pdf file of 2012 greenbelt strategic plan]

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. 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.

Ann Arbor greenbelt acquisitions through June 2012 (Image links to dynamic geocommons.com map)

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond in FY 2012 year was $1.225 million. [Two debt service payments are made during the fiscal year.]

Trocchio reviewed the major priorities for the greenbelt program: (1) protecting large blocks of farmland, with the target of at least 1,000 acres in a given area, (2) protecting natural areas in the Huron River watershed, (3)  building partnerships to leverage other funding sources – including funding from other local governments, the federal government, nonprofits and landowners, and (4) education and outreach.

Geographically, the greenbelt is focused on five areas of the county:

• Lodi Township: With several large farms and an increased number of applications from landowners, this township is viewed as a prime area for activity in the coming years, in part because of an expansion of greenbelt boundaries to include more of that township. Acres protected under greenbelt program: 337.
• Northern Scio Township, Webster Township and east Northfield Township: One of the most active areas, in part because both Scio and Webster townships have their own land preservation millages and frequently partner with the greenbelt program. Land in this area is also considered critical for protection of the Huron River watershed. Acres protected under greenbelt program through FY 2012: 1,484.
• Northfield and Ann Arbor townships: Over 1,400 acres have been protected in Ann Arbor Township alone – that township also has its own land preservation program. The Tilian Farm Development Center, a local farm incubator, is located there. Acres protected under greenbelt program through FY 2012: 1,415.
• Salem and Superior townships: This area includes land protected by the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy and Washtenaw County parks and recreation. The greenbelt program has partnered on several properties in that area. Acres protected under greenbelt program through FY 2012: 819.
• Pittsfield Township: Most of the township lies outside of the greenbelt boundaries, but it’s viewed as an important area for both farmland and natural areas protection. Acres protected under greenbelt program through FY 2012: 89.

Trocchio noted that by the end of this calendar year, about 4,200 acres will have been protected through the city’s greenbelt program. When the millage was approved in 2003, the expectation was that it would fund protection for between 3,500 to 4,500 over the life of the 30-year millage, she said. The economic downturn has helped the program protect more land than anticipated. When the program began, the purchase of development rights cost about $16,000 per acre. Today, it’s closer to $4,000 per acre, Trocchio said, with the likelihood of even lower costs in the coming year.

Annual Update: FY 2012 Financial Report

In her financial update for the year ending June 30, 2012, Trocchio reported that net revenues from the millage for FY 2012 were $2.574 million, with expenses of $3.083 million. In addition to debt service, expenses include $1.65 million in greenbelt projects and $87,230 for parkland acquisition. The greenbelt acquisitions were for:

• the purchase of development rights on the Thomas/Lobato property ($103,472 plus $23,867 for an endowment) for 30 acres owned by Duane Thomas and his wife Judith Lobato in Scio Township. The property is located near the northwest corner Scio Church and Wagner roads.
• the purchase of development rights on the Lindemann/Weidmayer property ($657,112 plus $23,867 for an endowment) for 111 acres in Lodi Township, owned by Bill Lindemann and his sister Karen Weidmayer. The property is located along Pleasant Lake Road, about a half-mile from the former Girbach farm, which is also protected through the greenbelt program.
• the purchase of development rights for the Boike Farm in Northfield Township (about 136 acres for $468,026 plus $23,867 for an endowment).
• $171,819 toward the purchase of 100.33 acres owned by Lakeside Development in Superior Township, located along the east side of Prospect Road, south of Cherry Hill Road. It’s now called the Jack R. Smiley Nature Preserve, in honor of the founder of the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy. The conservancy and Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program were the lead partners on that deal, which became part of the Superior Greenway, a corridor of more than 2,000 acres of protected land between Ann Arbor and Detroit.
• the purchase of development rights for the Newton Farm property – 58.85 acres in Ann Arbor Township – for $85,226. It’s now under different ownership, and called the Green Things Farm.
• $15,000 toward a conservation easement for 32 acres owned by Charles Botero in Northfield Township, in partnership with the Legacy Land Conservancy. The land is located on the east side of US-23, north of East Northfield Church Road.
• $46,750 toward the purchase of two adjacent properties owned by Joe Bloch, in Northfield and Ann Arbor townships. The land was purchased by Washtenaw County parks & recreation, with contributions from the greenbelt program. The 33-acre site in Northfield Township is on the north side of Joy Road east of US-23 and west of Gleaner Hall Road, adjacent to the county’s Northfield Woods Preserve.

Trocchio noted that during the 2012 grant cycle, the city was able to secure $396,900 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) – for the Robert Schultz farm in Superior Township, and the Robbin Alexander farm in Webster Township. Since 2005, the city has brought in nearly $6.7 million in FRPP grants.

In total during FY 2012, the city contributed about 48% – or $19.4 million – to the protection of land valued at $38.76 million. The remaining funds were provided by FRPP grants, landowner donations, or partners like Washtenaw County, townships or land conservancies.

A chart provided in the greenbelt’s strategic plan lists the sources of potential matching funds for the city, and amounts that have been secured to date:

Chart of current and potential greenbelt partners.

For the parks system, there was only one significant acquisition during FY 2012: $74,232 for the purchase of 5 W. Eden Court, located next to the Bryant Community Center. Trocchio noted that the priorities for parks purchases are laid out in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and include geographic distribution, natural resources protection, enhancements and linkages between existing parks, recreational value, protection of the Huron River, and long-term maintenance or development issues. The PROS plan doesn’t generally cite specific properties to target for acquisition, she said, with the notable exception of the MichCon/DTE property near the Argo Cascades.

The millage fund balance stood at $9.587 million as of June 30. Of that fund balance, $4.396 million is designated for parks, while $5.19 million is set aside for the greenbelt program. In addition, there’s $525,761 in an endowment set up to cover legal costs related to monitoring and enforcing the conservation easements held by the city.

Administrative costs of $120,043 in fiscal 2012 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.

Connections & Walkability

Peter Allen (GAC) raised the issue of connectivity. He wondered whether PAC members embraced the idea of prioritizing land acquisition that creates linkages between existing parkland, as well as providing ways for people to navigate Ann Arbor – for people who are walking or biking to work, for example. Were acquisitions evaluated with an emphasis on making those linkages more than just a recreational use, creating options for people who don’t want to get in their cars? If so, it’s an approach that would mean the city is aggressively embracing a walkability agenda, he said, with implications for making its residents healthier.

Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation system.

PAC chair Julie Grand replied that connectivity is one of their top priorities, along with acquiring land along the Huron River. PAC’s primary focus is on maintaining and improving the land that’s already part of the parks system – and connectivity is a piece of that, she said. If it has the added benefit of a potential greenway or increasing walkability, that’s good. But members of PAC need to look at the parkland and facilities that the city already owns, she said, and see how they can better connect people with those existing properties. For parkland along the river, for example, how can the city get people there more easily and safely?

Grand said the city has done a pretty good job in terms of neighborhood access to parks. In most neighborhoods, you can walk to a park that’s within a quarter mile without having to cross a busy street. So now it’s about improving safety and improving the quality of that walking experience. When improvements were done at Argo Cascades, it connected with the county’s Border-to-Border Trail, she noted – that was a big selling point for that project.

She also reported that she serves on the North Main/Huron River corridor task force, and on the technical committee for 721 N. Main – a city-owned property in that corridor. That group is  looking at connectivity issues, Grand said, “but we don’t want to build a path to nowhere.”

John Lawter (PAC) added that when connectivity is a piece of a potential acquisition, “that’s a big plus.”

Grand also observed that if the MichCon/DTE property is donated to the city, then the money that’s been set aside for that potential purchase would be freed up to make other acquisitions.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that park-to-park or trail-to-trail connections are important. But Allen was also talking more broadly about getting around town, Smith said. A lot of people don’t realize that maintenance and funding of the the bike paths that aren’t within parks are not the responsibility of the parks system, Smith said. He thinks there’s opportunity for better collaboration between parks and alternative transportation staff, to figure out how to tie together transportation and parks initiatives.

Connections: Crossing Streets

Allen wondered if PAC had discussed getting better connections to the river across North Main and the railroad tracks, other than using sidewalks. Grand replied that they’d had lots of discussions about it. Smith added that those discussions have been going on for at least a decade.

Grand felt it made more sense for the North Main/Huron River task force to deal with those issues, rather than PAC, because North Main Street is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). But PAC should be involved in conversations about how all these pieces fit together, she said.

Tim Berla (PAC) described the issue of connectivity as an expensive problem to solve. The Allen Creek greenway – from the river to Michigan Stadium – has been discussed, but having the land isn’t the entire solution, he said. He felt the biggest advance that the city had made in developing a greenway was the installation of the HAWK (high intensity activated crosswalk) signal at the intersection of Huron and Chapin, near the YMCA. But obviously, installing traffic signals isn’t in the purview of the city’s parks system, he said, so it’s a difficult problem.

Peter Allen noted that several transit issues will be moving forward in the next 6-12 months. He cited a connector study between Plymouth and South State, commuter rail, the sale of railroad tracks from Norfolk Southern to MDOT – which Allen said could open the possibility of having “a little more reasonable person at the table to negotiate crossings” – and countywide transit. “I think the park agenda will need to be aggressively at the table,” Allen said.

[The countywide transit project, known as The Washtenaw Ride, was effectively halted a week later when the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of that project at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting. Some councilmembers and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority have indicated a desire to encourage other ways of expanding public transit.]

Celebrating Successes

Dan Ezekiel, the chair of GAC, said it was good to discuss difficult issues that the two commissions have faced, but he also wanted to pause and celebrate the successes that they’ve had. Since the two groups last met, the new Argo Cascades has been completed. He described it as the biggest positive thing to happen in town in a decade. That’s a huge step forward in connectivity, he said. It brings the Huron River to the forefront of people’s minds as being part of the city. Until the cascades opened, he hadn’t canoed from Gallup to Argo since his college days – “all because of the dumb little portage.” He gave the parks system kudos for that project, and he hoped the same kind of connectivity can be found for the Border-to-Border Trail.

From left: Tom Bloomer and Dan Ezekiel of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

These projects show that intractable issues eventually can be solved, Ezekiel said. How long had there been quarreling about the Argo Dam, or talking about the MichCon/DTE property? He noted that the greenbelt program had a few “brags,” too. The greenbelt participated as a partner in creating the Jack R. Smiley Nature Preserve in Superior Township, with the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy and Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program. The project, which is part of the Superior Greenway, connected several other parcels and includes public access and trails.

Ezekiel also pointed to some projects that have been completed and that are in the pipeline involving “locally consumed food.” [That phrase is one that GAC member Tom Bloomer has advocated for, in an effort to distinguish from food that is produced in Washtenaw County, but sold outside this area.] Ezekiel reported that one of the properties in Ann Arbor Township that the greenbelt program helped to preserve was bought by a small local farmer. Getting Salem Township on board with the greenbelt program was new, and Lodi Township is also getting more involved – that’s probably the nicest area that’s available for expanded protection of farmland, he said. Both commissions have some positive things to point to since the last time they met, Ezekiel concluded.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said it’s important to keep in mind that good things can happen in places where you might not think it’s possible. Argo Cascades is an example of that – it’s the first time since 1830 that the river has been connected in that area. “Things can change.”

Some land acquisition deals are 15-20 years in the making, Ginny Trocchio added. ”You never know what’s going to come back around.”

Recreational Uses in the Greenbelt

Tim Berla (PAC) explored the possibility of using millage funds to buy land for recreational use outside of the city. Inside the city, for example, it would be hard to find an adequate amount of land for more soccer fields. Dan Ezekiel (GAC) said it’s been very clear that the city doesn’t want to own land outside its boundaries. That’s a guideline that the greenbelt program has always used, he said.

Berla felt that a recreational field could be an exception, because it’s open space, but he understood that it doesn’t appear the greenbelt funds can be used for something like that.

Laura Rubin (GAC) pointed out that the city does participate in fee-simple (outright) purchases within the greenbelt and outside of Ann Arbor, but that always happens in partnership with other entities that can own the land and manage it, like Washtenaw County. Examples include the Fox Science Preserve, Meyer Preserve and Scio Woods Preserve – all done in partnership with the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP).

Ezekiel noted another recent example – the Jack Smiley Preserve that’s part of the Superior Greenway. The Ann Arbor greenbelt contributed to the purchase price, but the property is owned by the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, and Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program holds the conservation easement.

Tim Berla of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. In the background is Catherine Riseng of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. Barely visible between them is Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC.

Rubin recalled that GAC had discussed possibly purchasing the Knights of Columbus property for use as soccer fields. Ginny Trocchio quickly pointed out that the city didn’t pursue the purchase, adding “that’s not for discussion.” [Most land acquisition deals are initially discussed in closed sessions – that category is permitted under the Michigan Open Meetings Act. It's likely that the Knights of Columbus property was discussed in that venue in the past.]

Berla wondered how many acres in the greenbelt program were protected via fee-simple purchases. Trocchio estimated that of the roughly 4,200 protected acres, all but about 400 acres are agricultural lands protected through the purchase of development rights.

Later in the meeting, the issue of recreational use emerged again. Alan Jackson noted that some soccer and other sports associations want to own their own land. It has the benefit of creating a kind of park without entangling the city in maintaining the property, he said. Jackson wondered if the greenbelt program had done any outreach to those groups? It sounded to him like GAC wasn’t amenable to that approach.

Ezekiel replied that it hasn’t been a priority for the greenbelt program. Trocchio noted that the issue of active recreation has never come up in any of their discussions. Jackson observed that it might reduce the purchase price for protecting open space.

Tom Bloomer noted that the first difficulty would be that none of the greenbelt’s partners would be interested in participating. The other programs – particularly the federal government – are focused on preserving the agricultural economy, he said, “so we’d have to do it all on our own.” The second problem is that if there was a conservation easement, the owner of the land would still have the insurance liability and other responsibilities associated with having a sports complex on the property. The city doesn’t want to own property outside of Ann Arbor, so it would be a difficult scenario, he said.

Trocchio said the only way she could see the greenbelt program being involved is if a piece of the property had a high-quality natural area. In that case, perhaps the city would purchase an easement for that piece.

Farming Trends

Peter Allen (GAC) brought up the topic of farming trends in the county. Shannon Brines (GAC) – who owns Brines Farm in the Dexter area – noted that on average, “farmers are pretty old, and retiring.” But there are definitely more small farms at the farmers market, he added, so that’s a growth area. But Brines wasn’t sure what the balance is between new farmers and those who are retiring.

Tim Doyle (PAC) wondered if the amount of land being farmed is decreasing. Tom Bloomer (GAC) – owner of Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township – described the agricultural sector as the strongest part of the American economy at this point. There’s less development pressure, so the agricultural land base is pretty stable. There’s even farmland in Ypsilanti Township that’s owned by developers and is being sold back to farmers, Bloomer said. Ten years ago, you wouldn’t have imagined that was possible. “That’s a situation that I don’t know if we can expect to continue forever,” Bloomer said. “But right now, land is moving out of development and into agriculture – if the land hasn’t been ruined in the meantime.”

Allen recalled that an appraisal done a few years ago indicated there was an 8-10 year supply of excess development lots in Webster and Superior townships. That is, it would take 8-10 years until demand for development would surpass the available supply.

Trocchio reported that the USDA is updating its agricultural census this year, so next year there will be more data on the number and age of local farmers, and the amount of farmland.

Tim Berla (PAC) said he knows some people in their 30s who are trying to start small farms. Is there any way that GAC can promote that – or is it even a good idea for GAC to help establish small farmers?

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund.

Trocchio noted that the commission has talked a lot about that issue. If a developer wants to sell the land outright, the city can buy the development rights to lower the land value while a farmer comes in simultaneously to buy the property. “That’s one way we can help new farmers get on the land,” she said.

Dan Ezekiel (GAC) gave the example of a project in Ann Arbor Township. Land had been donated to the township by a developer. Now, the Tilian Farm Development Center is located on that site, which provides a farm incubator for new farmers. One farming couple in that program ended up buying the farm across the street from it – that transaction included the greenbelt program buying the development rights, while the couple bought the farm.

Berla suggested that the city could help new farmers by coordinating the process of finding land and securing deals for conservation easements. Trocchio said she doesn’t envision the city or GAC taking on that role, but she noted that she had helped an intern for the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) explore the idea of a “land link” program. [See Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Group Briefed on Land Link Idea."]

Laura Rubin (GAC) noted that in some ways, the participation of the greenbelt program is dependent on the size of the farm. A few years ago, GAC changed its strategic plan. It had originally favored large farms – 40 acres or more – because that’s the size that is eligible to receive federal matching funds. There is the expectation of a certain amount of matching funds in these deals, and without federal funding, it’s more difficult to get that match. But when it became clear that the community was getting more interested in locally produced food, GAC changed its scoring system so that smaller farms wouldn’t be penalized when their applications are scored and considered by the greenbelt program. The city needs to be careful in its acquisitions, she said, and not protect land just so someone can build a McMansion and have the land around it preserved. It needs to be viable for farming – and when a property is too small, those concerns emerge, she said.

Ezekiel pointed to several local nonprofits that are focused on the local food movement, including Selma Cafe, FSEP, and the Washtenaw Food Hub. But the greenbelt program isn’t the “farm police,” he said. They don’t promote any particular business plan for farmers. The economy will dictate how the land is used, Ezekiel said. “Our job is to protect that farmland and greenspace outside the city, and the economy will decide what the best use of that land is.”

Ezekiel recalled a conversation he’d had with someone involved in Seattle’s greenbelt program. She had told him that things had changed dramatically for them in ways they hadn’t anticipated. When Seattle’s program first started buying development rights, there were a lot of dairies. But over the years, those businesses consolidated. Now, the land was being used for things like cut flowers and produce for local farmers markets in the Seattle area. So it isn’t wise to get too involved in telling farmers how to use their land, he said.

Berla asked whether the Ann Arbor greenbelt easements prevent a large property from being sold in smaller parcels. Trocchio replied that land divisions aren’t allowed.

Ingrid Ault said she was curious about the Washtenaw Food Hub. The greenbelt program isn’t really involved, Trocchio replied, although the hub is surrounded by land that’s protected by the greenbelt. Richard Andres, who’s leading the venture, had attended GAC’s April 9, 2012 meeting and briefed commissioners about the project. Located on the former Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, it’s envisioned as a place to provide support for farmers to distribute and sell their produce, and for residents to buy food, attend workshops and create relationships with those who are part of the local food network. The Lunasa market has moved to the hub, Trocchio reported.

Ezekiel noted that the hub was a stop on the greenbelt bus tour earlier this year, and also on the Ecology Center’s annual EcoRide bike-a-thon route.

Protecting Parkland, Greenbelt Property

The issue of protecting land for parks and the greenbelt emerged in several different ways during the Nov. 1 discussion.

Protecting Parkland, Greenbelt Property: Land Use

Tim Berla (PAC) noted that Ginny Trocchio has used the word “protect” frequently in her presentation. He knew that if the city bought development rights for a property, then the owner couldn’t put a subdivision or shopping mall there – but apparently it can’t be used for recreation purposes either?

Trocchio explained that conservation easements typically describe the reason that the land is being protected from development. That reason is often for agricultural or natural areas preservation. Easements also include stipulation against certain activities – for example, stating that the land can’t be used for ballfields, because that would interfere with the reason that the land was being protected. There’s no stipulation about the type of farming that must be done, she said, although easements do address issues like pesticide management. However, there’s no requirement for things like organic farming.

Berla wondered if the land that has an easement could still have a large operation on it, like 8 million pigs – would that be allowed? Trocchio thought those issues would be addressed under the state’s generally accepted agricultural management practices (GAAMPS). But Tom Bloomer (GAC), a Webster Township farmer, noted that land protected using USDA grants would not allow restrictions on the types of farming. Factory farming, which he thought Berla appeared to be describing, is a loaded term, Bloomer said, but it’s not restricted as such.

Berla clarified with Bloomer and Trocchio that if the greenbelt program wanted to ban those kinds of large farming operations, it would mean that federal funds couldn’t be used to secure the purchase of development rights.

Protecting Parkland, Greenbelt Property: Financial Assets/Liabilities

With some communities in Michigan going through emergency financial management and bankruptcies, Alan Jackson (PAC) wanted to know to what extent are acquisitions protected from “financial calamity.”

Ginny Trocchio explained that even if a property goes through foreclosure, the conservation easement remains on the title and will transfer to the next property owner with the same restrictions on development. Jackson clarified that he wanted to know how the city of Ann Arbor would be protected. He acknowledged that it’s hard to conceive of the city reaching the point of needing an emergency financial manager, but they should think about that possibility.

Tom Bloomer (GAC) noted that you can’t put a monetary value on an easement and get that money back, because the landowner still owns the land. The only thing the city owns is the development rights. “There is no market for development rights, because those rights have been extinguished – that’s in the deed, so there’s nothing for the city to sell,” Bloomer said.

Conservation easements are not assets that can be liquidated. “It’s more of a liability, quite honestly,” Trocchio said. If the city went into bankruptcy, the easements would have to be transferred to another qualified conservation organization to hold.

Jackson observed that the Ambassador Bridge was never intended to be under the control of one person, and now it is – so that’s something to think about. Bloomer said if “everybody else disappeared,” the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture would take over the easement on properties that they’ve put money into.

Protecting Parkland, Greenbelt Property: Endowment

Jackson noted that the greenbelt sets aside funds for an endowment related to each property that has a conservation easement. He wondered how that’s invested.

Trocchio replied that those endowment funds – $525,761 to date – are invested along with other city funds. [In fiscal 2012, the millage funds, including the endowment, earned $176,082 in investment income. Commissioners had previously raised concerns about how those funds were invested, and were briefed by the city's treasurer, Matt Horning, on details of the city's approach.]

Trocchio said that when the program got started, Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, had given advice on estimated expenses related to enforcement. Currently, about $20,000 per property is set aside for that possible future need, she said.

Jackson wondered if that would be sufficient. Trocchio replied that they were taking a conservative approach, but they don’t expect all easements to be violated. John Lawter (PAC) wondered if there had been any easement violations yet. No, Trocchio said, but most landowners are still first-generation. It’s more likely that violations would occur after the property changes hands.

[The issue of violating an easement emerged last year in Webster Township, for a conservation easement outside of the greenbelt boundaries. See Chronicle coverage: "Webster Gives Ground for Civil War Days."]

Protecting Parkland, Greenbelt Property: Parkland Sale

There was some discussion at the Nov. 1 meeting about a parks-related proposal earlier this year at Ann Arbor city council, in the context of what protections are in place to prevent the sale – or de facto sale – of parkland. At its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting, the council debated putting a question on the Nov. 6 ballot that would have asked voters if they wanted to amend the city charter to require a referendum to lease parkland for non-park or non-recreational use for longer than five years. PAC had voted unanimously against recommending that council put that question on the ballot. Ultimately, only four of the 11 councilmembers had supported it: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

At the Nov. 1 joint session, Tim Berla (PAC) said he had supported a 2008 ballot question that Ann Arbor voters had overwhelmingly approved, which changed the city charter to protect parkland from being sold:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof.

Berla noted that the more recent proposed ballot question was seen as a reaction to the city’s effort to build a parking garage and train station on the site of a surface parking lot that’s part of Fuller Park. He described some ways that the parks are already protected from sale – if the land is purchased with parks millage funds, for example, or if it’s included in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan.

As far as he knew, Berla said there has never been an attempt to sell park property in Ann Arbor. If there were, he was pretty sure that PAC “would kick and scream.”

Julie Grand, who serves as PAC’s chair, said she hadn’t felt comfortable supporting the recently proposed ballot question on leasing parkland because it’s difficult to know what will happen 30 years down the road. Someone might propose a project that makes sense and provides a great benefit to the city, but that requires a long-term lease, she said.

The city has 157 parks and natural areas, Grand noted, and simply adding parkland at this point isn’t a good approach. The city shouldn’t buy land for parks just because a property owner wants to unload it so they don’t have to pay taxes. “Clearly there’s a difference between Furstenberg Nature Area and The Rock,” she quipped.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, explained the process that would be required if the city wanted to sell parkland. The sale would have to be approved by voters, but even before it gets to that point there are significant hurdles, he said. It would have to be removed from the parks master plan, a process that would require a recommendation from both PAC and then the planning commission. The city council would then need to vote to put it on the ballot. All of these steps in some ways provide the greatest protection, Smith said. If you’re a business person who’s interested in buying  parkland, why would you want to go through all of that “rigmarole,” Smith asked.

However, Tim Doyle (PAC) noted that from the city’s perspective, there could be significant economic reasons for wanting to sell a piece of property that’s deemed as parkland. In some cases if a park can’t be maintained, “it’s crap,” he said.

Contract Update

Laura Rubin (GAC) asked about the status of the contract renewal for management of the greenbelt program.

Since the greenbelt program launched, the city has contracted with The Conservation Fund to manage its operation. The current three-year contract ends on Jan. 15, 2013. The nonprofit – with headquarters in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. – also manages the city’s parkland acquisition. Both efforts are funded by the 0.5 mill open space and parkland preservation millage that voters approved in 2003. Ginny Trocchio is the nonprofit’s local staff member.

The Ann Arbor city council approved the current contract with The Conservation Fund on Dec. 21, 2009. It authorized $119,565 in 2010, with two one-year renewal options for $113,661 in 2011 and $106,797 in 2012. The Conservation Fund was the only bidder for that request for proposals (RFP). It is expected to bid on the renewal as well.

At the Nov. 1 meeting, Trocchio reported that the RFP hadn’t yet been issued. [It was subsequently released, with a Nov. 28 (10 a.m.) deadline for responses. (.pdf of management RFP)]

Catherine Riseng, who serves on the RFP review committee for this contract renewal, praised Trocchio’s work – and Trocchio received a round of applause from both GAC and PAC commissioners.

Present from greenbelt advisory commission: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Shannon Brines, Archer Christian, Dan Ezekiel, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin. Absent: Carsten Hohnke.

Present from the park advisory commission: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, John Lawter, Mike Anglin (ex-officio). Absent: Karen Levin, Missy Stults, Christopher Taylor (ex-officio).

Staff present: Ginny Trocchio, Colin Smith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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