National Public Policy Conference
September 21, 2004
Jim Bardenhagen
MSU Extension Director
Leelanau County, Michigan
231.256.9888
bardenha@msu.edu
Leelanau County
Michigan State University
East Lansing
Programming Efforts
& Experiences
Leelanau Farmers Markets
&
Leelanau Farmland Preservation
Leelanau Farmers Markets






Leelanau Farmers Market Committee
Four locations in towns & villages
Season – late May through October
Goal: Support local ag and thereby preserve ag
& farmland.
Concept: Buying local
produce & food
Rural Entrepreneurs
Challenges








No farm-friendly ordinances
Public sites very limited
Temporary use permits
Temporary vendor permits
Plea to township boards
Obtain new permit after every 5th market
Door-to-door visit for neighbor approval
Current space may limit growth
Challenges Continued…





Hard to attract year round residents
Vendor/Customer variability
Established Traverse City market
Small yield from advertising efforts
Need higher volume to impact agriculture
Successes







Local chambers requesting
Good seasonal resident & tourist participation
Community socializing
Core vendors
Fresh Food Partnership
Local women groups support
High % Women vendors
Future






Look at multi-days at central
locations
Treat market like CSA – sell
shares
Partner in inventory of local food
system
More year round promotion
Seek by-right zoning farmer
markets
More customers, vendors, product
diversity
Leelanau Farmland Preservation
Leelanau Farmland Preservation
Background







Alert: 28% growth 1990 - 2000
Ag Alliance Farmland Research Taskforce
Farmland Preservation Tours to Maryland, PA
Focus groups, surveys conducted
Development of GIS data
2 years of work, grants
Recommendation published for Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) & Leasing
Leelanau Farmland Preservation
Background Cont.



State PDR Program changed in 2000
Ag Alliance petitioned County
Commissioners to create Farmland
Preservation Board
June 2001: first county in Michigan to create
a Farmland Preservation Board
Leelanau Farmland Preservation Board

11 Members (Appointed):
Farmers/Agribusiness Rep.
Conservation Rep.
Township Rep.
Economic Development Rep
Public Rep.
At-Large Rep.

(5)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
Ex-official Agencies:
MSU Extension (Secretary)
Leelanau Conservancy
Soil Conservation District
County Planning Department


Initially funded by county & grants
Recommend to County Commissioners
PDR Ordinance




2-year effort using Ag Alliance
recommendations
Numerous educational workshops
No funding provisions
Ordinance hearing:




Largest commissioner event
Large support
Some concern on how funded
First in the state
Leelanau Farmland Preservation Program
Primary Objectives

Preserve long-term business environment for
agriculture in Leelanau County

Preserve rural character and scenic beauty of
Leelanau County
Uniqueness Aspects

20.5 acre vs. 51% in active ag

Focus on active ag vs. view sites

Negative points for close by development

Exempt farmers from paying for
1st Application Round

13 farms

Between 20 and
330 acres in size

Average size of
150 acres

2,000 acres total
Challenges


Township Participation

Participation resolution (7 out of 11)

Application approval

New legislation stakeholder

Small player, but large voice
State Ag Preservation Program

Legislature created in 2000

Adopted allocation method 2004

County vs. township dilemma

Hard times for state – no $

Earlier design based on county level program
Challenges Continued

Funding Recommendation

3/4 Millage

Farmer exemption

30% from other sources

Private

New (need enabling legislation)

Legal funding methods

Survey indications of support
Major Reactions to
Funding Recommendations

Private property rights & no tax people (farmers,
public)

Township letters against

Board of Commissioners Vote (4-3) against allowing
millage on ballot

Major issue in 2004 election

Education important but rumors prevailed

New legislation proposals

Discussions with Legislators

Discussions with Stakeholders
Current Efforts

Private funding drive

Possible additional survey on public support

Dealing with funding dilemmas (private vs. public)

Convincing local government that farmland
preservation is worth paying for

Moving ahead slowly

State application via farmer donation

Some preservation under federal program/local conservancy

Assessing new funding methods
Thank you