The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), in reviewing their Right to Farm Generally Accepted Agriculture Management Practices (GAAMP), is recommending new language that will give more local control to communities that are exclusively zoned residential.  If a community is zoned primarily for residential purposes, then it will be labeled as not acceptable for a livestock facility and there would be no Right to Farm protection for those individuals wishing to have livestock.  It would be left solely up to the local unit of government on whether or not they wanted to allow livestock in their community.   This is critical to ensure the  community is able to make ordinance decisions based on the needs and desires of their residents.

From Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development:
“Siting of New and Expanding Livestock Facilities: Currently the GAAMP defines livestock production facility as any site with 50 animal units or more.  50 animal units is a sizable number – 5000 chickens, 50 steers, etc.   The GAAMP was written considering livestock numbers in rural Michigan – so below this number a farmer did not have to voluntarily conform to any siting requirements to receive Right to Farm benefits.  If a farmer was above 50 animal units there are a host of standards they need to comply with to be in conformance with the GAAMP and receive the affirmative nuisance defense and freedom from any ordinances which might limit their operation.

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in having small numbers of livestock in urban residential areas.  A number of communities have written exceptions to their ordinances which allows for the keeping of livestock, especially poultry, under certain conditions in urban settings.  More and more individuals are using the preemption language of Right to Farm to confine small numbers of livestock in urban residential areas which have not allowed for livestock in their ordinances.  The fewer than 50 animal units language in the Livestock Siting GAAMP allows for this to happen because of the small number of animals these individuals are raising- they do not have to conform to the siting GAAMP because it does not apply.   We are seeing increasing conflict between municipalities and townships and livestock owners in these urban residential areas. 

To address this issue, the commission, department staff, and the Siting GAAMPs committee chaired by MSU have been working on language for the last 18 months which would return control of livestock in urban residential areas to local government.  The risk of nuisance issues, conflicts and other environmental factors increase as housing density increases.   Because of these risks, bringing livestock into these urban residential areas should not be happening without local jurisdictional oversight.  

To be clear, the department supports the expansion of urban agriculture and livestock production across the state.  The expansion of agriculture, whether for personal consumption or for local sale/distribution, will provide an opportunity for people to be closer to local food sources.  It also creates an opportunity for the urban agriculture movement to be integrated with any local community’s plan for food hubs or farm markets.  We would like the local communities to be willing partners in this expansion.   It is important to allow the differences in these local communities to be expressed in how they create opportunities for livestock within their jurisdiction.  Currently, the department is assisting the City of Detroit in just such an effort.      

The keeping of livestock in areas zoned exclusively for residential use has never been a generally accepted agricultural practice.  If the proposed Siting GAAMP language is adopted by the Commission at their March meeting, for purposes of the Siting GAAMP, a RTF complaint or proactive request in urban areas will result in a program review of zoning for the location in question.  If the zoning is exclusively residential, then the site will be identified as not acceptable for a livestock facility under the Siting GAAMP.   A local community may determine to permit possession of animals traditionally used as livestock in this exclusively residential area but compliance with that determination will be left to the local community.   If zoning clearly identifies an agricultural use or a mixed agricultural use as its primary zoning designation (e.g., many locations use an agriculture/residential zoning designation), then the site is not zoned exclusively residential and department staff will evaluate whether the site complies with the other requirements of the siting GAAMP.   It is important to note in practical terms the changes proposed in the siting GAAMP will have no impact on the many small farm operations in existence in rural areas or suburban areas which are zoned rural residential, R1, R2 or R3 or other zoning designations which allow for some mixed use beyond exclusively residential. “

Nikki Brown is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development and land use issues.  She can be reached at nbrown@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

As reported in a previous post, the House Tax Policy committee took general testimony on TIFs and DDAs this week.  The committee was only about 35 minutes long because of caucus meetings and the Governor’s budget announcement, which didn’t give us a lot of time to present.  The Michigan Association of Counties started off the committee and their presentation by saying they are not looking to eliminate TIF districts but are looking for more accountability, transparency and partnership in economic development.  They dove into a particular example of a community (Union Township in Isabella County) who they feel is a “bad actor” and went through tax capture examples from their two DDAs and how much they were capturing verse what the DDA was capturing, as well as, what the county would say, is the inability of those DDAs to work with the other taxing jurisdictions.  It was then MML’s turn to close out the committee hearing and I was joined by Tom Dempsey (city manager, Portland) and Kris Larson (DDA director, Grand Rapids) to speak about the many benefits TIFs/DDAs provide to local municipalities/the region and the importance of having an all in sort of approach when it comes to economic development (not allowing opt-outs) so has to effectively create change in our municipalities.

The chair of the committee (Rep. Jeff Farrington, Sterling Heights) indicated that the committee would take the spring to focus on this issue (likely after their break in April).  As soon as we know when the committee meetings will be or when a bill dealing with TIFs and DDAs will be introduced, I will be sure to let you all know.

Again, I would stress the importance of contacting your legislators and not only discussing with them the benefit these districts have provided to your community but also inviting them to the district so they can see firsthand the positive impact.  Have them talk with business owners, residents, etc. to get their perspective of the positive impact as well as from the local community’s perspective.

This is the perfect opportunity for communities to show the benefits of their TIF districts and the great things that have happened because of them that not only benefit the local community but also the region surrounding it.  Discuss with them what an opt-out would do to the economic development efforts of your community and how useful these tools truly are.

A big thank you to both Tom and Kris for braving the nasty roads that morning and testifying and to all of you who have already taken the opportunity to discuss this with your legislators.

Nikki Brown is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development and land use issues. She can be reached at nbrown@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

Yesterday the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee heard testimony on House Bill 4624, a bill that would make a full-time firefighter’s ability to work as a firefighter in another community a prohibited subject of bargaining.The legislation is supported by the fire chiefs and the Michigan Townships Association.

The League is opposed to this legislation as it violates local control in the bargaining process. The committee did not vote on the legislation.

Samantha Harkins is the Director of State Affairs for the Michigan Municipal League.  She can be reached at 517-908-0306 or email at sharkins@mml.org

Yesterday the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee consideredHouse Bill 4939, a bill that would allow a department head to serve as a city manager.

The legislation was prompted by a community in Rep. Knezek’s (D-Garden City) district where the police chief is serving as interim city manager. Under the current statute this is permissible in communities with less than 25,000 population. This legislation would expand it to larger communities. The substitute that passed committee would limit this option to communities of 100,000 people. We are interested in ensuring that exception is available for communities of all sizes.

We anticipate a vote on this legislation next week.

Samantha Harkins is the Director of State Affairs for the Michigan Municipal League.  She can be reached at 517-908-0306 or email at sharkins@mml.org

Yesterday the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee held testimony on Senate Bill 733, a bill that would amend the governmental immunity law to limit the highway defect liability of a governmental agency for bodily injury to a pedestrian or other person who was not traveling in a motor vehicle on the improved portion of a highway, or for damage to the person’s property.

Under the bill the plaintiff would have to prove that the governmental agency knew or should have known of the highway defect at least 30 days before the incident. In addition the governmental agency would be presumed to have maintained the highway in reasonable repair.

The presumption could be rebutted only by proof that a vertical discontinuity defect of two inches or more in the highway, or another dangerous condition in the highway itself of a particular character, or both, was a proximate cause of the injury or damage.

The committee did not vote on the legislation.

Samantha Harkins is the Director of State Affairs for the Michigan Municipal League.  She can be reached at 517-908-0306 or email at sharkins@mml.org

Yesterday the Governor announced his Fiscal Year 2015 budget which included the same level of funding for fire protection grants that was appropriated last year – $9.2 million.

Fire protection grants are awarded to communities who have state buildings that are not on the tax rolls to include state office buildings, universities and prisons.

We expect budget hearings to begin in the next week, and we will continue to push for additional funding for fire protection grants.

Samantha Harkins is the Director of State Affairs for the Michigan Municipal League.  She can be reached at 517-908-0306 or email at sharkins@mml.org

This morning the Governor presented his Fiscal Year 2015 Budget to a joint meeting of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee. The budget will include a 3 percent increase in funding to the Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP), as well as a 12 percent infusion into a new EVIP line item that eligible communities can tap into, an increase that totals $36 million. Constitutional revenue sharing has also increased by 3 percent totaling $19.4 million. This means there will be an additional $55.4 million coming to cities, villages and townships through these increases. You can view the entire executive recommendation on the State Budget Office’s website (EVIP begins on page 83).

Unfortunately, while we hope this means there is recognition of the importance of reinvesting in communities, the Governor and Legislature have cut funding by more than $6 billion in the last decade. Our municipal finance system is broken, and we will not be able to create prosperous communities without addressing this critical issue.

In addition, there are still significant problems with the EVIP program. Governor Snyder proposes creating a “gold standard” for communities who meet certain criteria. The exact language was not made available, but it could include criteria like high credit ratings and low unfunded liabilities. Communities who meet the “gold standard” would not have to comply with EVIP.

The Governor is also proposing an additional $28.8 million in EVIP for which eligible communities can qualify. It is population based; however, communities who qualify for EVIP would be eligible for this funding if they meet certain criteria that would bump their population numbers by 10 percent for each one they meet.

The criteria are: the “gold standard”; if a community is in the top 25 percent for violent crime; if a community is in the top 25 percent of unemployment or if a community has submitted an approved deficit elimination plan to the Department of Treasury. These new criteria are in addition to EVIP, and frankly they are very confusing. We will be working to make eliminate the current burdensome EVIP criteria, and that will certainly include not adding additional confusing criteria to the mix.

There is no recommendation that we increase transportation funding which is obviously problematic for our local transportation systems. The League has released a statement on the budget that thanks the Governor for recommending an increase in spending but calls on him to address our broken municipal finance system and increase money for transportation.

We look forward to working on both the general government and transportation budgets as hearings start in the coming weeks.