GROWING TOGETHER Enhancing Urban Agriculture in the City of Milwaukee STEVE BAISDEN . SAHANA GOSWAMI . STEVE KUNST
This report on urban agriculture was developed as part of the Applied Planning Workshop at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in the Spring 2012 academic term. The research, analysis and final recommendations were developed over the course of five months, from January 2012 to May 2012. Report developed by Steve Baisden Sahana Goswami Steve Kunst
Faculty advisors Dr. Nancy Frank Ms. Carolyn Esswein
ACKNOWL ED GEMENTS This research project could not have been completed without the assistance of Samuel Jensen, Bruce Wiggins and Pam Schaefer of Milwaukee Urban Gardens (MUG), who provided us with this opportunity. We would especially like to thank Samuel Jensen, MUG Program and Outreach Manager, for providing guidance throughout the planning process. His timely responses and wealth of knowledge guided our efforts in the right direction. Finally, we thank our instructors, Dr. Nancy Frank and Ms. Carolyn Esswein, for their invaluable support and input throughout the development and progress of this project.
May 15, 2012 Milwaukee Urban Gardens Mr. Samuel Jensen Outreach and Program Manager 1845 N. Farwell Avenue Suite 100 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Dear Mr. Jensen, After careful research and analysis, we have developed a range of deliverables to aid Milwaukee Urban Gardens (MUG) in its continued support of urban agriculture in the City of Milwaukee. The focus of this project centers on identifying methods of making urban agriculture a profitable venture, enhancing the overall urban agriculture environment within the City and attracting new farmers and gardeners. We developed a dynamic spreadsheet intended for calculating an optimal garden size for an individual or household on a case-by-case basis. This spreadsheet takes into consideration the amount of money, time and available land a given person or household is willing to contribute towards urban agriculture activities. Strategies for enhancing the overall urban agriculture environment within the City of Milwaukee are also recommended. As a package, the recommended strategies address each of the goals established at the outset of the project. Strategies detailed in the report include: • Further research studying the feasibility of an urban agriculture marketing cooperative • Linking local farmers and gardeners with the Yards to Gardens website • Incorporating urban agriculture activities as a stormwater management best management practice to allow landowners to be eligible for a decreased stormwater fee assessment • Modifying City codes to allow for on-site sales of urban agriculture products • Creation of a comprehensive urban agriculture master plan for the City of Milwaukee We recognize the issues facing urban agriculture are both large and complex. The ideas and potential solutions found in this report may not represent a panacea; however, we believe the approaches are realistic and upon implementation, will result in immediate positive impacts. We encourage MUG to further consider these recommendations as the organization continues to evolve. We are truly grateful for the opportunity to work with you and the Milwaukee Urban Gardens organization. Thank you for your valuable time and energy, and please feel free to contact us with any additional questions. Sincerely,
Stephen Baisden, Sahana Goswami and Steve Kunst
Image courtesy: Milwaukee Urban Gardens
EXECUTI V E
SUMMARY
Urban agriculture efforts occurring in the City of Milwaukee are recognized as some of the top in the nation; however, significant barriers remain for many urban farmers and gardeners as it pertains to marketing products and succeeding financially within the City’s current policy framework.
Project Goals
This project aims to identify methods of making urban agriculture a profitable venture in the City of Milwaukee, develop strategies to further enhance the urban agriculture environment in the City and attract new farmers and gardeners. Deliverables Optimal Plot Size A simple application was developed to calculate an optimal garden size based on the amount of money, time and land potential farmers are willing to contribute to urban agriculture, on a caseby-case basis. Strategies for Enhancing Urban Agriculture This report recommends five strategies for enhancing the overall urban agriculture environment in the City of Milwaukee. Collectively, the strategies address each of the projects goals. • • • • •
Establish an Urban Agriculture Marketing Cooperative Connect with Yards to Gardens Website Stormwater Fee Reduction Initiative Permit on-site sales of Urban Agriculture Products Establish an Urban Agriculture Master Plan
Recommended Organizational Roles As an organization acting as the liaison between gardeners and the City, MUG is uniquely positioned to play a major role in future success of the urban agriculture in Milwaukee. Identifying the feasibility of an urban agriculture marketing co-op along with connecting growers with the Yards to Garden website and advocating for change in City policy, are all avenues MUG as an organization can undertake; continuing their success of enhancing the quality of life in the City of Milwaukee.
Image courtesy: USDA
Posters promoting Victory Gardens (community gardens and backyard gardens) in the US during World War II
FOREWORD Urban agriculture in the United States has had a strong presence dating back to the days of World War II and the Victory Gardens. In the 1970s and 80s increased auto-dependence, suburban movement and big box stores drastically changed food habits across the nation. It is only in the past two decades that environmentally conscious members of society have instituted a paradigm shift and incorporated urban agriculture as a part of the new urban dialogue. Recently, local governments in the United States have become involved in the processes of urban agriculture. Increasing costs of fuel have spurred food prices to record highs, and the urban agriculture movement has been gaining momentum as a popular local food source. The response from City governments range from relaxation of zoning regulations allowing urban agriculture by-right in various zoning districts in Portland, Oregon, allowing on-site sale of farm produce in all residential districts as in Kansas City, Missouri (Land Stewardship Project, 2010), and provisions for community gardens in residential districts in Seattle, Washington. In the City of Milwaukee, innovative urban agriculture practices are being developed, but a cohesive, policy led approach is absent. Hence urban agriculture occurs in discrete locations, often involving multiple actors across the city. The goals and directives of these agencies often vary and a comprehensive approach is lacking. Further, the City maintains a reactive approach to urban agriculture needs. So far the impetus on urban agriculture has been to provide a source of secure food supply to families. Thus, urban agriculture practices are limited to smaller sites and are farmed by small groups. Given the slow economic climate and the plans of the Office of Environmental Sustainability, urban agriculture is poised to be an important part of both a regional food policy and a sustainability plan. Stormwater management practices and composting and recycling of vegetable wastes are additional practices that can be incorporated into the urban agriculture module. The City of Milwaukee should incorporate urban agriculture into their comprehensive sustainability plan to address issues of environmental sustainability, food security and “green� jobs as recommended by the Green Team’s Report to Mayor Tom Barrett (Green Team, 2005).
i
Image courtesy: Missouri Beginning Farmers
ii
TABL E
OF
CONTENTS
Introduction
1
Problem Background
2
Public Participation
3
Optimal Garden Size
5
Strategies
8
Urban Agriculture Marketing Cooperative
9
Yards to Gardens Website
11
Stormwater Fee Reduction
13
On-site Sales of Urban Agriculture Products
15
Urban Agriculture Master Plan
17
Priorities
20
Organizational Roles
22
Sources
26
Appendices
28
Appendix A: Goals, objectives and criteria
29
Appendix B: Handout at public participation event
30
Appendix C: Summary sheet of focus group discussion 32
Appendix D: Optimal plot size: calculations and assumptions
34
Appendix E: City of Milwaukee - Stormwater management charge adjustment policy (2005)
35
Appendix F: Excerpts from the Kansas City Zoning and 40 Development Code amendments pertaining to on-site sales of urban agriculture products
iii
I N TRODU C TION At first thought, urban agriculture appears counter-productive in relation to a planner’s role in development and increasing a city’s tax base. A development mind-set almost solely focused on commercial, residential and industrial development has long been the standard in urban areas throughout the United States. Slowly, cities began to realize the vital role parks and open spaces held in an urban environment. Intangible benefits associated with urban green space such as recreational opportunities, aesthetics, and a sense of place all combine to provide an increased quality of life for urban residents. More recently, much discussion has focused around urban agriculture and local food. With fuel prices and obesity rates continuing to skyrocket, cities and individuals alike are looking from within for reliable sources of healthy foods. Urban gardens provide an opportunity for people to grow their own food while also increasing their property values (Voicu and Been, 2008), promoting neighborhood investment, enhancing their community’s aesthetic appeal and endorsing household self-sufficiency. Cities throughout the United States (e.g., Seattle, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Philadelphia) have embraced urban agriculture as a tool for both community building and an additional income stream for their constituents.
1
PROBL EM
BACKGRO UN D
Milwaukee Urban Gardens (MUG) is one piece of the urban agriculture initiative within the City of Milwaukee. MUG offers means for community improvement through its dedication to acquire and preserve land and to partner with neighborhood residents to develop community gardens improving the general quality of life. Urban agriculture activities in the City of Milwaukee are recognized as some of the top in the nation; however, significant barriers remain for many urban farmers and gardeners. The issues facing urban agriculture in the City of Milwaukee have multiple dimensions. Difficulties sourcing water and attracting new farmers represent some of the resource management issues facing urban agriculture in Milwaukee. Additionally, various City policies such as restrictive zoning and land use policies, and complex permitting processes involving multiple agencies create impediments to successful practices, constraining urban agriculture efforts to temporary endeavors. Efforts are further constrained by lack of visibility and connections in the marketplace and a deficiency in educational awareness of healthy foods. The goals of this project were to identify methods of making urban agriculture a profitable venture in the City of Milwaukee, to develop strategies to further enhance the urban agriculture environment in the City and attract new farmers and gardeners. Objectives and criteria were also developed to assess the efficacy of recommendations (Appendix A).
2
P U BLIC
PART ICI PATI ON
Designing meaningful public participation efforts can be a challenging process, but the results are fruitful. Planners must provide accurate and thorough information and allow active participation throughout the planning process. Disseminating important information provides the public with the knowledge and necessary tools to help solve problems, identify alternatives and opportunities and develop solutions. Doing so will allow public feedback on future planning decisions and promote direct stakeholder involvement throughout the process, ensuring public concerns are both understood and considered. On Tuesday, March 13th, 2012, a focus group meeting was conducted to gather ideas from a knowledgeable group of stakeholders invested in urban agriculture in Milwaukee (Figure 1.0). The focus group was held from 6:00 to 7:30 PM and was hosted by Amaranth Bakery, located at 3329 West Lisbon Avenue (Appendix B). Seven stakeholders attended the focus group and provided valuable feedback to the following questions (Appendix C ): • What are some methods of making urban agriculture a profitable venture? • What are some strategies for attracting new farmers?
PA R T I C I PA N T S
FOCUS GROUP
Responses to the first question generated significant discussion amongst participants. Ideas centered on youth development organizations that would introduce urban agriculture to children early enough to help influence social change. This would be an opportunity to demonstrate to youth the benefits of eating healthy, engaging in the community while potentially earning some money. Participant
Affiliation
Mary Beth Driscoll Janice Christensen David Boucher Andor Horvath
Groundworks Milwaukee YMCA - CDC Amaranth Bakery Amaranth Bakery
Judy Fassbender Samuel Jensen Pam Schaefer
Milwaukee Urban Gardens Milwaukee Urban Gardens Milwaukee Urban Gardens
Figure 1.0: Attendees of the focus group meeting at Amaranth Bakery
3
Image courtesy: Stephen Baisden
Participants involved in a discussion during focus group meeting at Amaranth Bakery
Another interesting idea focused on the concept of incorporating the “value added role1” in conjunction with a food cooperative. This could help create an additional marketing strategy for the cooperative potentially increasing profits for participating urban farmers and gardeners. Responses to the second question focused on education and visibility issues. Many of the participants suggested increasing exposure to children in schools by including curriculum blocks focused on urban agriculture. The idea being, if civic organizations can support the development of school gardens, topics relating to urban agriculture can then be incorporated into class work. Education coupled with greater exposure through field trips and bus tours showcasing successful urban agriculture practices in a variety of settings would help to increase awareness of the benefits associated with urban agriculture. If children see successful gardens, they may be more likely to become involved. Participants were thanked and assured their feedback was an invaluable tool in guiding the remainder of our project. Several ideas from the focus group were the basis for developing our recommended strategies.
Value added role” refers to the processing of fruits and vegetables to make products such as jams and pickles which sell at higher prices. 1“
Image courtesy: Milwaukee Urban Gardens
4
GARD EN
SI ZE
Urban agriculture is part of a lifestyle choice which embraces sustainable living and seeks to maintain the environment around us. A social and economic experiment is growing across the world, incorporating urban agriculture as a means of making money for households. In developing nations, urban and peri-urban2 agriculture has formed a stable economic base for lower-income families. Lower-income households can attain the dual benefit of growing some of their food needs, in addition to selling for a profit. But when the conversation of farming for profit in urban areas is transposed onto developed nations (like the United States), the cost-benefit analysis indicates that urban agriculture3 practices generate limited revenue and cannot become the primary income source for an individual or household.
As a part of this project, an application was developed to calculate an optimal garden size based on the level of investment potential farmers are willing to contribute (Figure 3.0). The application is a simple excel spreadsheet requiring nominal computer skills to operate, allowing for application in a variety of situations (Appendix D).
Peri-urban agriculture refers to the industry on the fringe areas of urban regions, engaged in producing, processing and distributing a variety of food product. 3 Assumption made while considering the cost-benefit analysis of urban agriculture is that the urban agriculture is practiced on the ground or in raised beds. Additional technological solutions (such as hydroponics, multi-level farming, etc.) are not considered. 2
5
City farmer
Revenues to household
Non-monetary benefits remain (social and environmental) for practicing urban agriculture even in developed nations like the United States. Social benefits include food security for the urban region, decrease in food miles and community building in neighborhoods. On the environmental side, urban agriculture can become part of the recycling/composting cycle, stormwater can be reused for watering garden plots, and urban agriculture on rooftops can replace conventional green roofs. The advantage of connecting urban agriculture to environmental best management practices (BMP) are the dual benefits that can be achieved. For an individual or a household, the benefit of practicing urban agriculture is the potential for growing one’s own food and the reduction in purchases from the store. In the greater context, growing one’s food reduces our carbon and water footprint.
Sustenance cycle
Revenues
Urban garden Excess produce to market
O PT I M AL
Market sales
Figure 2.0: Urban agriculture practices can supplement household food needs and reduce dependence on big-box stores for purchase of fresh foods. Excess produce can be sold to generate some revenue which can be cycled back into household budgets.
Interested farmers are asked to fill out a form containing questions pertaining to the amount of money they can spend on urban agriculture, time they have available for farming and whether they have any land available (and if so, how much?). The farmer can also choose any other items they many need to farm, such as gardening tools, water, seeds and soil, etc. The application is flexible, allowing farmers to pick and choose the items they require, thus generating accurate results on a case-by-case basis. The application filters the values for land area to choose the appropriate size as it is recognized that a single factor must not influence the choice of garden size. For example, a farmer has $200 to spend on urban agriculture. The costs of tools he/she requires is $80, leaving them with $120 to materials such as soil and mulch. Considering money alone, the farmer can afford to farm 92 sq.ft. However, the time the farmer can allot to farming is just 10 hours per week, as he/she may have another full-time job. Assuming necessary gardening activities require 3.4 minutes per sq. ft., the size they can effectively garden could based solely on the time investment could be 167 sq.ft. However, it is known the farmer can only afford to operate 92 sq. ft., so the potential plot they can afford based on both time and money is 92 sq. ft. Finally the gardener has a backyard where they wish to garden, encompassing 100 sq. ft. If combined with the known value the farmer can afford (monetary and time commitment), the optimal plot size for their operation is 92 sq. ft., as this is the most limiting factor.
6
STEP
2 STEP 4
3
5 STE P
The three potential garden sizes based on money invested, land available and time available are compared. The smallest value of these numbers is considered as the OPTIMAL GARDEN SIZE.
ST EP
1 STE P
Fixed costs (tools, etc.) subtracted from initial amount invested equals the amount that can be invested to prepare the garden
Money that can be invested, divided by cost of garden per sq.ft. provides potential size of garden
Available land (ex. size of backyard) is compared to potential land size. The smaller value is used for further calculations.
This calculation determines the potential size of garden based on available time.
Figure 3.0: Estimation of costs related to garden setup; including costs of material (lumber, soil, etc.), hard costs (tools, etc.). This application uses variables such as available land (if yard is on private property), time devoted to urban agriculture and the money that can be invested (Appendix D)
7
STRATEGIES Through a combination of research and the focus group meeting, five major strategies worthy of further consideration and action were identified. All five help increase the presence of urban agriculture in Milwaukee. These strategies may be grouped into three general categories focused on marketing, projects and initiatives, and policy changes as follows: Marketing Establish an Urban Agriculture Marketing Cooperative A group of urban farmers develop a cooperative food outlet in which they share marketing, shipping and related activities so they may sell their produce efficiently to increase profits, which are shared amongst participating members. Projects and Initiatives Connect with Yards to Gardens Website This website links urban landowners with unused urban gardening space to prospective urban farmers who are eager to garden. Extra supplies, including seeds, compost and mulch can also be shared, functioning as a cost savings measure for starting and/or maintaining an urban garden. Stormwater Fee Reduction Since urban gardens capture rainfall which otherwise would runoff into storm sewers, landowners of urban garden areas should be offered monetary incentives or a fee discount for this reduction in runoff. Policy Changes Permit on-site sales by-right The City should modify codes pertaining to on-site sales of urban agriculture products allowing small-scale urban agriculture produce sales to occur close to home and community gardens, where the produce is grown. Establish an Urban Agriculture Master Plan The over arching, long-term plan for Milwaukee urban agriculture would establish goals and expectations that support local foodrelated activities. The result of this plan would be a united effort amongst stakeholders to secure healthier, local food that is grown, marketed and distributed throughout Milwaukee. 8
STRATEGY 1 Establish an Urban Agriculture Marketing Cooperative What is a Marketing Cooperative? An urban agriculture marketing cooperative is an organization owned and operated by a group of farmers, businesses or manufacturers producing similar products (Marketing for the Small Farmer, 2010). Members of the cooperative share in marketing, shipping and related activities to sell products efficiently and then share the profits based on the production, capital or effort of each. How the Co-op Works Individual farms and gardens grow products independently. Products from the individual farmers and gardeners are aggregated and sold under a unified product label, allowing for smaller-scale operations to reach larger markets. Products from individual farms and gardens are weighed or measured (depending on how they are sold) and revenue generated at the point of sale is split proportionately among all contributors. A portion of revenue also goes to cover the costs of administration, processing and marketing. Potential markets for urban agriculture marketing cooperatives may include farmers markets, grocery and corner stores, schools and restaurants.
BACKYARD BOUNTY CO-OP, VANCOUVER, CANADA Twelve urban agriculture enthusiasts banded together in 2011 to form the Backyard Bounty Co-op in Vancouver, Canada. The Co-op developed as part of a non-profit group named Urban Abundance, with a goal of providing an avenue for local farmers and gardeners to supplement their income. Backyard Bounty Co-op provides members administrative, logistical and material support regardless of size. A small, one-time fee of $25 dollars and a 20% consignment fees cover costs associated with booths, marketing efforts and packaging materials. Financially strapped individuals may be eligible for a consignment fee waiver. Additionally fees for a given market day can be reduced by volunteering to staff the booth.
Establishing an urban agriculture marketing cooperative in the City of Milwaukee would provide multiple benefits to small and largescale urban farmers including decreases in product marketing costs and increased prices farmers receive for their products. Additionally, farmers are able to aggregate and centralize packaging, storage and shipping operations; resulting in increased operational efficiency. Cooperatives can allow much needed market stability for small and large-scale urban farmers alike. Marketing products of coop members collectively will open markets once unattainable for many urban farmers. This larger market can result in better prices, and in turn, increased profit. Also, rather than having the burden of marketing fall on the shoulders of each grower, members are able to benefit from the success of one unified label. Image courtesy: Backyard Bounty Co-op
9
Marketing cooperatives do not always undertake cooperative purchasing practices, but they very well can. Pooling financial resources of co-op members allows farmers to decrease the price paid for goods such as seed, soil, mulch and tools as products are able to be purchased in bulk. Urban Agriculture Marketing Cooperative in Milwaukee
Image courtesy: Natalie Maynor
Image courtesy: New York Times
Many urban farmers in the City of Milwaukee have the desire to grow and sell produce, but are unable to identify reliable markets in which to sell. Establishing a centralized operation where produce from a cooperative of farmers can be aggregated, processed and marketed collectively, will allow member farmers to receive a better price for their produce. The first step in establishing a co-op is to identify a market to sell the products. Without clients willing to purchase the products, a co-op will not succeed. If sufficient demand exists, efforts are then necessary to identify potential growers. A fee structure and business plan will then need to be developed. Implementing a business plan similar to that of the Back Yard Bounty Co-op will keep both start-up and overhead costs low. As memberships and connections in the market grow, so can the scale of the co-op. The co-op could occupy a centrally located building within the City of Milwaukee where products of urban agriculture would be processed and stored. Another alternative is to have the co-op rent or borrow space from existing farmers markets on days when the market is not in operation. This would drastically reduce overhead costs, but not allow for storage when necessary. Responsibility of getting products to the processing and packaging location can fall either on the individual grower or the co-op may opt to provide a scheduled pick-up service. The level of compensation a given member receives is based on the amount and quality of product they contribute. Quality in this case refers to both the condition of the product in addition to its overall value. Value is important in this determination as some products are simply worth more than others. For example, typically tomatoes and lettuce receive a higher price than carrots; so a supplier of tomatoes should receive more compensation than one supplying carrots.
10
STRATEGY 2 Connect urban farmers and gardeners to the Yards to Gardens website (y2g.org)
YARDS TO GARDENS WEBSITE IN THE TWIN CITIES
This innovative strategy links landowners with unused urban gardening space to prospective urban farmers who are eager to begin gardening via a website. The result is a partnership, a cooperative arrangement between the landowner and urban farmers to grow food and help create stronger ties within a community.
The Yards to Gardens website is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Launched in 2010, this website connects urban farmers and gardeners.
This process is similar to establishing a centralized network that features online classified advertisements; however, this centralized network is focused on urban agriculture. Postings on this website include four categories devoted to urban landowners who either (1) have extra space in their yard for gardening, (2) have extra tools or gardening supplies to share, (3) have extra seeds or compost to share, or (4) are urban farmers looking for places to garden. A map displays listings by zip code, with icons for each of the four categories so that a prospective gardener can identify opportunities that are nearby.
Farmer Share
tools
Excess land
Urban
over
internet
Connect
the
Seeds, soil
and mulch
Property owner Figure 4.0: The website allows connections to be made; between the farmer who has insufficient land, to the landowners who have limited time to farm, to people with gardening tools. The website allows for resource and knowledge sharing across the city
11
Currently, the developers of the website desire to work with other community gardening groups around the country to expand their services and help provide this resource to others looking for space and/or supplies. Prominent cities where citizens are taking advantage of this service include Minneapolis, St. Paul, San Francisco and Chicago.
Anyone can post a listing related to any of the four categories. For example, a prospective urban farmer is looking for space to grow produce since the land they live on is not conducive to growing food or there is a lack of sufficient space available. Across town, a landowner has unused space available and is receptive to having fresh produce grown there. These two individuals would use this urban gardening website to link themselves for mutual benefit. Once a connection is made, the landowner and the gardener establish terms of the agreement and how to divide the harvest. Image courtesy: ASLA
Image courtesy: Yards to Garden
Figure 5.0: Screenshot of the Yards to Garden website showing the City of Minneapolis and the requirements of farmers and property owners
12
STRATEGY 3 Stormwater fee reduction by incorporating urban agriculture activities as a best management practice (BMP) This strategy connects urban agriculture to an existing program pertaining to stormwater mitigation within the City of Milwaukee. As part of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSLCI) since 2004, the City of Milwaukee has undertaken proactive steps in water quality management by incorporating sustainability practices into the functioning of the City. The resolutions of the GLSLCI defined the path the City of Milwaukee was to take and the goals and objectives were elucidated upon in the Green Team Report to Mayor Tom Barrett in 2005. A significant topic under discussion at the time and further emphasized in the Green Team Report was stormwater diversion from storm sewers and storage and reuse in grey water cycles. The City of Milwaukee, continuing on its proactive path, passed a resolution (City of Milwaukee, 2005) in September of 2005, establishing a storm water management charge adjustment policy. The City charges all properties (taxed and taxed exempt) a quarterly charge for the stormwater diversion services provided by the City’s storm sewers. The charges are calculated based on the hard surface on the site, presuming all stormwater falling on these surfaces will eventually flow into the City’s storm sewer network. But the city also recognizes not all properties are connected to the storm sewers, nor is all the stormwater on the site conveyed into the system. Hence the resolution allowed property owners to seek up to a 60% reduction in the stormwater charges if they could demonstrate diversion of stormwater from the storm sewers4 (Appendix E). Using this storm water reduction as an incentive, the City and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) have been encouraging property owners of large industrial and office complexes to incorporate stormwater BMP’s on their site. These include cisterns for stormwater storage, bioswales and rain gardens, etc.
The resolution was passed with the recommendation that all non-residential properties could seek this fee reduction as all residential properties are charged a flat annual rate. 4
13
STORMWATER MITIGATION AND FINANCIAL RETURNS Bryan Simon at Simon Landscaping Inc., Milwaukee is a pioneer in the practices of incorporating stormwater BMP’s on-site to reduce stormwater runoff and diver stormwater from city storm sewers. Simon Landscape Inc. has partnered with American Rivers to create the Energy Exchange, a nonprofit organization involved in education and outreach to businesses, municipalities and home owners about the benefits of introducing stormwater BMP’s on-site. In 2010, the Energy Exchange successfully petitioned the City of Milwaukee, and reduced their stormwater charges from 24 ERU’s (estimated residential units) to 5 ERU’s and saving $1,300 per year on the storm charges (Ciccantelli, 2010).
STORMWATER MITIGATION AND BENEFITS TO SMALL RESIDENCES The stormwater credit, as defined by the City addresses only nonresidential sites. But smaller residential sites can also benefit from urban agriculture practices. At present MMSD and the City are educating property owners about stormwater diversion by means of downspout disconnections, rain barrel installations, incorporation of rain gardens and porous paving. But property owners are not engaged in this process, as they see no significant benefit for themselves by incorporating these measures. The city can propagate the stormwater-agriculture incentive as a benefit to home owners, as downspout disconnections, setting up of rain barrels and practicing urban agriculture can ensure food safety for home owners.
The urban agriculture strategy is to recognize urban agriculture lots as a legitimate BMP measure for stormwater diversion, for small residential plots as well as larger multi-family or industrial properties; and to award larger sites (residential and nonresidential) a stormwater fee reduction if urban agriculture BMP measures are incorporated. To prepare sites for the incorporation of this stormwater-agriculture initiative, a storage point for stormwater and the construction of raised beds5 for urban agriculture is required. The stormwater collected on the site must be diverted to the storage cistern and the water can be used throughout the growing season. The construction of a cistern is an additional cost to property owners, but the costs can be balanced by renting out the urban agriculture plots. Conversely the property owners can look at alternate means of storage of water (rain barrels, PVC water cisterns). To maximize the benefits associated with this stormwater credit, the City must extend the resolution to include large residential properties (multi-family, condominiums, etc.). This strategy will be a benefit not only for property owners who allow urban agriculture practices to occur on their site, but will also relieve the stress on City storm sewers, reduce costs to the City, and increase the land available for urban agriculture in the City.
Stormwater on built surfaces
Stormwater storage Re-use on garden
Impervious paving
Storage cistern
Urban garden
Figure 6.0: Conceptual diagram showing stormwater diversion (from storm sewers) for urban agriculture purposes
Raised beds on private properties will circumvent concerns of soil quality and connected health and safety issues. 5
14
STRATEGY 4 Code modification allowing for on-site sales Milwaukee is recognized across the nation as an innovator in urban agriculture practices given the presence of organizations such as Growing Power and Sweet Water Organics. Modifications to already made to City codes encouraging urban agriculture include allowing for hoop houses on urban agriculture plots increasing the length of the growing season, increasing the number of days a seasonal market may function, and designating the raising of crops or livestock in commercial and institutional zones as a special use (City of Milwaukee, 2010). Thus, the City has addressed to a degree the concerns relating to length of the growing season, areas available for urban agriculture and produce sales for large-scale farmers. Additionally, a number of City initiatives are in the form of pilot projects. But the City’s approach has traditionally been reactive, rather than proactive with regards to urban agriculture. Further, the City does not explicitly address the sale of produce grown on urban agriculture sites by small farmers. Given the limited urban land available for urban agriculture, largescale production is not always possible. Thus, yields are constrained and small farmers get very limited volumes of produce that can be sold at a time. The challenge small farmers face is a disconnect between the time produce is harvested and when it can be sold at farmer’s markets. Farmers must then invest in preparing and storing the produce until such time as the market is in operation. This time lapse decreases the quality of the produce and can create additional expenses for the farmer. A proactive response from the City can be to incorporate the sale of fresh produce on-site as a by-right in all residential zones. Smallscale farmers (people farming in their yards) could sell excess produce upon harvest, and reduce the transportation costs they would otherwise have incurred in transferring produce to a market. A code addressing the needs of small farmers will have a citywide effect instead of fragmented efforts in select neighborhoods. Kansas City, Missouri sets a precedent in a similar matter having passed a resolution in June of 2010. This resolution outlined four scales of urban agriculture which encompassed the small backyard farmer, community gardens, CSA’s and crop agriculture. These scales of agriculture establish guidelines for set-backs, storage structures on-site and on-site sale of produce. Addressing small 15
ZONING CODE CHANGES IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI Kansas City, Missouri went through a series of zoning modifications during the fall of 2009. Councilman John Sharp in collaboration with Katherine Kelly of the Kansas City Center for Urban Agriculture drafted an urban agriculture ordinance, which allowed home gardeners and community gardeners to sell produce on-site. In June of 2010, the ordinance recommended by the Planning and Zoning Committee passed the city council in a 10-3 vote. Councilman Sharp sees urban agriculture as a responsible lifestyle choice, allowing farmers and consumers to choose local foods instead of foods from thousands of miles away. But each Planning and Zoning Committee hearing had a fair share of opposition (home owners and real estate developers) who saw the on-site sale ordinance as a potential nuisance creator for neighborhoods. They repeatedly claimed that there were plenty of opportunities for local farmers to sell produce at farmers’ markets. And in their neighborhoods, that may be the case. But many advocates pointed out, Kansas City is full of “food deserts” — blighted neighborhoods where grocery options are limited to fastfood chains and whatever is available at the nearest liquor store (Farris, 2010).
PRO URBAN AGRICULTURE CODE CHANGES IN MILWAUKEE June 2008: Alderman Witkowski along with area residents and businesses declares the 13th district the Garden District and the Garden District Neighborhood Association continues work with UW Extension to create community gardens at 6th and Howard. May 2009: City of Milwaukee sells two vacant lots to Walnut Way for an urban agriculture field testing station. Goal is to determine best management of urban soil fertility and possible contaminants. November 2010: Redevelopment Authority approves a $900,000 EPA grant to remediate 538 South 2nd Street. This is to develop the Julie Kaufman’s Clock Shadow Creamery, with a planted roof garden.
farmers, the Kansas City ordinance describes the smallest urban agriculture scale as a home garden6. These home gardens are allowed to sell produce (whole and uncut) from the lots containing the garden during the growing season (May 15 to October 15). Restrictions on this right for on-site sales are that processed foods and produce from other properties cannot be sold on-site. Signage is also allowed on-site (Appendix F). The ordinance allows similar rights to community gardens to sell produce on-site during the growing season, without the need for any special permits from the City. The City of Milwaukee should consider a similar ordinance allowing on-site sales of produce, which will ease the burden on small farmers. Farmers practicing urban agriculture on small plots or community gardens will be able to sell their produce upon harvest; maintaining the freshness of the produce and decreasing costs associated with transportation.
FUTURE ZONING CODE CHANGE IN THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE City of Milwaukee approves on-site sale of urban agriculture produce (whole and uncut) in all residential districts in the City. Image courtesy: Needham Family Farm
Home garden: a garden that gardeners and their family maintain on the site where they live, eating the produce themselves, or selling or donating it. 6
16
STRATEGY 5 Urban Agriculture Master Plan for the City of Milwaukee Development of a long-term, citywide master plan centered on urban agriculture in the City of Milwaukee will continue to refine the decision making framework for local decision makers into the future. Key sections to be outlined in this plan include: an inventory of existing conditions, issues and opportunities, public participation and final recommendations. The approved plan may act as a stand-alone document or be adopted as an amendment to the City’s existing comprehensive plan. Amending the comprehensive plan to include the urban agriculture master plan is the preferred approach, as it provides the City with documented justification for future policy decisions regarding urban agriculture. Inventory of Existing Conditions Initial studies will require an inventory of the existing conditions local farmers and gardeners operate. An in-depth inventory of major players currently involved in urban agriculture is also essential. Citywide demographic and economic data, along with existing and planned land uses will help identify the need for additional urban agriculture land and resources throughout the City. Useful demographic data will include population, housing, employment and income. Much of this information obtained from the City’s comprehensive plan with updates occurring whenever possible. Land use research will provide information associated with the supply and demand for urban agriculture land and facilities. Additionally, an analysis of the trends and projections outlined in the comprehensive plan should occur to ensure future efforts will coincide with anticipated population growth.
Image courtesy: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
17
“EATING HERE” GREATER PHILADELPHIA’S FOOD SYSTEM PLAN In 2010, representatives from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission published a study focusing on the 100-mile “Foodshed” of Greater Philadelphia (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2011). Their efforts centered on identifying the successes, challenges and opportunities facing the regions food system. Values of sustainable and resilient food systems and were identified as farming and sustainable agriculture, ecological stewardship, economic development, health, fairness and collaboration. An analysis of existing conditions was followed by recommendations for improvement and how the region moves forward. Recommendations dealt with a variety of different issues; including allowing for access to affordable farmland, natural resource protection, agriculture enterprise development, healthy food awareness and access, school system solutions and regional collaboration. The study concluded that implementing the recommendations found in the report would require many devoted groups and individuals throughout the region. Since completion, several Greater Philadelphia Food System Implementation Grants have been awarded allowing for some recommendations found in the plan to come to fruition.
Public Participation
FARMER
g Re ns
Sa le
s
tio ula
Permits
MARKET
CITY
Figure 7.0: Relationship between the three main actors in urban agriculture in a city - farmers, market and the city government
As with any planning process, meaningful public participation plays an essential role. In regards to urban agriculture, an inclusive planning process will solicit the public perception of current policies and practices as well as allow for innovative ideas to be heard and documented. Public involvement efforts should include a citizen advisory committee consisting of interested citizens, farmers and gardeners, business owners and City officials; open houses and public information meetings; strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analyses; and a public opinion survey. It is good practice to develop a public participation plan outlining specific public involvement activities, and detailing how and when stakeholders will participate throughout the planning process. This plan should follow the guidelines set forth in the State of Wisconsin’s Smart Growth law. Issues and Opportunities The goal of this section is to define the desired future for Milwaukee as it pertains to urban agriculture. As in any rational planning process, goals, objectives, policies and programs will need to be identified. These efforts will focus on enhancing urban agriculture as a method of improving community development, access to healthy local food and the potential to supplement an individual or family’s income. Creation of an urban agriculture mission and/ or vision statement will further solidify the framework for future policy and land use decisions throughout the City. Recommendations The final product resulting from each of the efforts previously described is the recommendations section. Priority policies, programs and other innovative ideas identified and debated throughout various efforts will be further detailed with mention of their role in the larger urban agriculture environment within the City. These recommendations will serve to inform current and future decision makers of the activities desired by their constituents. Policy and decision makers should use the recommendations found in the plan to further enhance the well-renowned urban agriculture environment in Milwaukee.
18
19
PRI ORITIES After identifying the five strategies for enhancing the overall environment for urban agriculture in Milwaukee, a list of priorities centered on three strategies was developed. These recommendations should be initiated as soon as possible. Priority recommendations were selected based on their necessity and/or ease of implementation and are prioritized, as follows: Priority #1: Connect urban farmers to the Yards to Gardens website (y2g.org) The first priority is to link up with the Yards to Gardens website. Not only will this website increase the awareness of urban agriculture opportunities in Milwaukee by identifying additional opportunities to grow produce, but it also enables gardeners to share tools, seed, compost and mulch; thereby helping to reduce start-up and operating costs of gardening activities. This strategy is also easy to implement as it requires few resources to complete. A simple phone call or e-mail would suffice in order to make the initial connection to the developers of the Yards to Gardens website. Advertising this new opportunity could consist of posting informational flyers in churches, schools, grocery stores, farmers markets, libraries or community centers; posting a link on MUG’s existing website; and by simple word-of-mouth. Essentially, this can be a low cost, low effort activity offering a great return. Priority #2: Establish an Urban Agriculture Master Plan The second priority is the creation of the urban agriculture master plan. This strategy would provide the ideal opportunity for urban agriculture stakeholders to collaborate with the City and to collectively identify policies to guide the development of urban agriculture into the future. Ultimately, this plan would be incorporated into the city’s comprehensive plan. Priority #3: Establish an Urban Agriculture Marketing Cooperative The third priority is so study the feasibility of developing an urban agriculture marketing cooperative to efficiently market produce urban farmers and gardeners have grown. The idea is the co-op could be a result or recommendation of the urban agriculture master plan. The co-op holds the potential to be a direct method for increasing an individual farmer’s profits.
20
Image courtesy: Milwaukee Urban Gardens
21
ORGANIZATI ONAL RO LES Urban agriculture has had a long but disrupted history in the City of Milwaukee. The years of World War II (1934-1945) saw a spurt of Victory Gardens. However, beginning in the 1980s, Milwaukee began to witness a steady decline in the number of gardens in the City. Only with the advent of Growing Power and founder, Will Allen’s youth programs in 1993, did urban agriculture find some focus and support in the City of Milwaukee. Over the past two decades there has been a slow increase in urban agriculture activity in the city. Most recently, the City was awarded the IBM Smarter Cities Challenge grant (2011) to study methods of using urban agriculture and aquaponics as a means of generating economic activity and fostering community development in the City. Yet the momentum has been slow, as missing links remain in the existing urban agriculture organizational structure. Most importantly, the City lacks a premier organization which champions the cause of urban agriculture to the City and its residents. MUG’s Existing Role Milwaukee Urban Gardens, a non-profit organization, plays a crucial critical role in the propagation of urban agriculture in the City of Milwaukee. Founded in 2000, MUG has acted as an advocate for urban agriculture throughout the City. Acting as a liaison for local growers, MUG has played an active role in negotiating longterm lease agreements and acquiring permits for water from City hydrants for local farmers and gardeners. In addition, they have purchased five properties in an effort to preserve land for urban agriculture. In all, MUG owns or helps operate 27 parcels in the City of Milwaukee primarily devoted to urban agriculture. In the organizations infancy, MUG was challenged by a lengthy learning curve, knowledge gaps and a limited organizational identity. In succeeding years, MUG’s sustained efforts acquiring long-term land tenure options have been major successes. MUG has continued to expand its identity as well as its presence in the community. Public education efforts including workshops, cooking classes and an annual “seed-dating” event, have brought together some of the City’s finest farmers and gardeners. More recently, the organization accepted a seat on the Milwaukee Food Council; an organization bringing together community leaders, professionals and government to address issues regarding a healthy, sustainable system (Milwaukee Food Council). 22
Recommended Future Roles As both Milwaukee and the urban agriculture movement continue to evolve, so will MUG’s role. The following section reiterates recommendations made in this report and how MUG fits into each. The strategies discussed in the report focus on an outreach component (website), marketing challenge (co-op) and city involvement (stormwater incentive, code modification, master plan). As the organization acting as a liaison between gardeners and the City, MUG is uniquely positioned to play a major role in future development of the urban agriculture scene within the City of Milwaukee. Milwaukee has a number of small farmers7 and community gardens8 but these spaces are scattered across the city in isolated locations. Some gardens exist in close proximity and can be clustered, but often different organizations manage these spaces. The challenge is that resources and knowledge are not readily shared between the gardeners of these operations. The website recommendation hopes to circumvent this lack of communication and connections by creating an online platform for the sharing of resources and knowledge. As a large number of community gardens and small farmers belong to lower income neighborhoods and have limited access to internet services, MUG can act as a liaison; potentially posting growers needs for them. Additionally, MUG can help make the website more popular by simple word-of-mouth advertisement. The present urban agriculture scene in Milwaukee lacks a cohesive marketing presence. Though farmers’ markets exist, it is not always easy for small farmers to connect to these events. Additionally, farmers’ markets are held on a limited number of days, and harvests for small farmers may not coincide with the market schedule. The presence of a marketing cooperative is an ideal solution to allow small farmers access to a larger market. MUG can take on a variety of roles in the development of a marketing co-op while retaining its present structure and low employee numbers. MUG can take on an advisory role in the co-op development alongside an existing co-op like Riverwest Co-op or Outpost Natural Foods. MUG already has connections with neighborhood organizations, community gardens and gardeners; making them an ideal organization they to connect these groups with the proposed co-op. If MUG looks at expanding its scope, they can take on the charge of actually beginning and There are 46 small front and back yard gardens developed under the Victory Gardens Initiative. There are 53 large or community gardens operated by organizations such as MUG, UW-Extension, Growing Power, schools and churches. 7 8
23
operating the co-op. Again, MUG’s existing connections to growers is an advantage and this may be a potential future venture for the organization as they continue to evolve. In the case of the next three strategies, the principal agency must be the City of Milwaukee as the recommendations pertain to changes in City code. MUG’s role can be one of advocacy and promoting the rights of the local farmers and gardeners. MUG can become a collaborating partner in the development of draft resolutions and the master plan, not unlike the Kansas City Center for Urban Agriculture, in Kansas City, Missouri. Further, MUG can engage directly in the zoning process by communicating these strategies Gardens Owned or Leased by to the relevant City departments.
Milwaukee Urban Gardens (MUG), 2012 BROWN DEER
91ST
RIVER HILLS FOX POINT
64TH
60TH
Garden Tenure
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
GLENDALE
! (
3 Year Leased MUG Owned Seasonal Permit City of Milwaukee
WHITEFISH BAY
! (
! (
60TH
92ND
60TH
SHOREWOOD
! (
56TH
60TH
WAUWATOSA
City
WEST MILWAUKEE
! (! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! (
MILWAUKEE
! ( (! !! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ( ! (! ! (
! (
Milwaukee
20TH
WEST ALLIS of
! (
! (
Waukesha County
LA K
E
E
6TH
K LA
E
K LA
Milwuakee County GREENFIELD
ST. FRANCIS CUDAHY
Data layers courtesy: AGSL
Map 1.0: Gardens owned or leased by Milwaukee Urban Gardens in 2012
24
25
SOURCES Land Stewardship Project. (2010). How U.S. Cities are Using Zoning to Support Urban Agriculture. Land Stewardship Project. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (2005, September). Retrieved March 10, 2012, from Legislative Research Center: http://milwaukee. legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=161251&GUID=FF826D0A1796-4FF4-AC2D-4DA55AFED607&Options=&Search= Marketing for the Small Farmer. (2010). Retrieved March 2012, from UC Small Farm Program: http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/Pubs/Family_ Farm_Series/Marketing/coops.html Backyard Bounty Co-op. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2012, from Urban Abundance: http://sites.google.com/site/myurbanabundance/ backyardbounty Budget and Management Division, City of Milwaukee. (2005). Stormwater management charges adjustment policy - DOA. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US. Ciccantelli, M. (2010, June 11). Green For-Profit Business of the Year: Simon Landscape Inc. (Small Category). Milwaukee Business Journal. City of Milwaukee. (2010). Urban Agriculture in Milwaukee. Retrieved 2012 March, from Go Milwaukee : City of Milwaukee: http://city.milwaukee.gov/Urban-Agriculture.htm City of Milwaukee. (2012). The Municipal Services Bill 2012. Milwaukee: City of Milwaukee. City of Milwaukee. (n.d.). Stormwater management charge adjustment policy. 2005. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. (2011). Eating Here: Greater Philadelphia’s Food System Plan. Philadelphia: DVRPC. Farris, E. (2010, June 22). Kansas City Farming for Cash. Urban Farm Online. GLSLCI. (2004). Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. Retrieved April 2012, from http://www.glslcities.org/about/whowe-are.cfm 26
Green Team. (2005). The Milwaukee Green Team’s report to Mayor Tom Barrett. Milwaukee: City of Milwaukee. Growing Power. (n.d.). Growing Power: History. Retrieved May 2012, from Growing Power: http://www.ironstreetfarm.com/ about/growing-power-history IBM. (2011). IBM’s Smarter Cities Challenge: Milwaukee. Armonk: IBM. Milwaukee Food Council. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2012, from Center for Resilient Cities: http://www.resilientcities.org/Resilient_Cities/ MILWAUKEE_FOOD_COUNCIL.html Voicu, I., & Been, V. (2008). The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values. Real Estate Economics, 241-283.
27
A P P E N D I C E S
28
APPENDIX - A GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA Goal: Making urban agriculture a profitable venture Objective 1: Reduce start-up costs for developing an urban garden. Criterion 1: Determine start-up costs for an urban garden Criterion 2: Increase connections between landowners, farmers and consumers to allow for the sharing of resources Objective 2: Increase profits for urban farmers and gardeners Criterion 1: Increase the number of locations where products may be sold Criterion 2: Decrease operational costs for urban farmers and gardeners Goal: Enhance the urban agriculture environment in the City of Milwaukee Objective 1: Increase avenues to “reliable� sources of water for urban farmers and gardeners Criterion 1: Provide sufficient volume of water for the growing season Criterion 2: Water must be available within one block of the farm or garden Objective 2: Increase the ability of farmers to sell their product(s) Criterion 1: Simplify the permitting process for produce sales Criterion 2: Allow for sales of produce where it is grown Criterion 3: Allow for sales at non-traditional locations Goal: Attract new farmers and gardeners Objective 1: Educate people about the benefits of urban agriculture Criterion 1: Increase the amount of online informational resources Criterion 2: Increase workshops and other public educational events focused on urban agriculture Criterion 3: Incorporate youth education programs emphasizing the benefits of urban agriculture Objective 2: Increase incentives for urban agriculture Criterion 1: Create traditional and non-traditional monetary solutions to reduce financial risk Criterion 2: Provide a support framework for interested farmers and gardeners allowing access to non-monetary assets (i.e. seeds, tools, water, land and labor)
29
30
Photo Credits Page 1, Fig 2: Milwaukee Urban Gardens website (http://milwaukeeurbangardens.org)
For further details regarding urban agriculture and its potential in the City of Miwaukee contact Samuel Jensen Public Ally- Program and Outreach Manager (414) 431-1585, samjensen.mug@gmail.com
This program was facilitated by gradute students of the Urban Planning program at SARUP, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. The focus group event is part of a semester long Applied Planning Workshop which the students are participating in.
Acknowledgements to Milwaukee Urban Gardens for being the generous sponsors of this event.
Sincere thanks to our gracious hosts this evening, Amaranth Bakery.
Sponsored by Milwaukee Urban Gardens Facilitated by Applied Planning Workshop, 2012 SARUP, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
March 13, 2012
Sprouts in the Sidewalk
food . city . family . profit . farm
APPENDIX - B
HANDOUT AT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EVENT
31
R O
R O
R O
R O
R O
R O
R O
8QVG QH VJCPMU GPF UGUUKQP
Vote to identify critical issues and ideas
&QV XQVKPI
One member from each group lists 多ve important ideas /arge group discussion create 多nal list
5JQTVNKUV QH KFGCU
Facilitators switch tables and another session of discussion takes place
)TQWR 5GUUKQP ++
Two groups created and independent discussions carried out by each group
)TQWR 5GUUKQP +
Facilitators describe in detail the activi ties for the evening
4GXKGY QH CEVKXKVKGU
Organizers and facilitators of evening's program are introduced
+PVTQFWEVKQP VQ GXGPKPI
MEETING AGENDA
NOTES
APPENDIX - C SUMMARY SHEET OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Part 1 Homestead Project Conversion of land tenure to own Dave: home ownership is important – those having ties to the land have a stake in the land Young Farmers Program Teenagers used from Growing Power training program Clients who want produce but can’t harvest the food themselves 1st year, teenager can only have one client 2nd year, teenager can have more than one client $350 per client (flat fee) for delivery on bikes 7 clients as of last year Internship Program at Kilbourn Park 133 planting beds = 133 gardeners Held on Saturdays for high school kids Kids get stipend Co-ops Talk about it happening in Harambee neighborhood – Beans & Barely style of selling on Saturdays Dave (from Amaranth) potentially incorporating fresh produce (eggs) inside Amaranth for sale (lower cost eggs) Gardening on Walnut Hill – families – 4-5 plots per family Plots are bunched together which has led to higher productivity Spin Farming “Small Plot Intensive Farming” Job creation to connecting business (Amaranth) with farming but right now on small scale Hire someone to grow plants at bakery/other non-profits Someone works about 20 hours per week (park-time) Milwaukee Service Corps - Community Service Agriculture (CSA) How to get produce to consumers Deliver produce to people Deliver food boxes – use bicycle to keep local Use vehicles for city-wide approach – chauffer Consumers pay a fee at the beginning of subscription (similar to CSA) Whatever food is ripe or available is what is delivered Instead of delivering to every consumer (which takes longer), each would be delivered to a central location (easier on logistics) – people come to one place and pick up produce Farmer knows how much food (share) they have and that total can be sold to another family Volume of box or amount of food produced (share)
32
Value Added Role Bottling and selling own food Make more profit Needs to be in a cooperative model Innovation kitchens “Coffee Makes You Black” (example) – 38th and Center St. Businesses could rent of kitchens so when demand is there, kitchen can be used City possibly using old factory and turning into kitchen incubator Challenges of innovative kitchens in terms of storage capacity and shared space usage Part 2 Farmers need to make a time commitment Difficult part is people are doing this as a side-hobby and those with economic issues do not venture into it Lack of visibility Real profit is the money that people save by growing their own food Visibility Bus tour – MUG could help set this up Possible link to homes in Milwaukee – Greater Milwaukee Foundation Tour takes people to nice homes = nice gardens People see a very successful garden; they want to be a part of it and will attract more people to gardening • MUG – with use of grant money – target (market) towards children’s education in schools • Possible solution to expansion of urban agriculture in the future • Leads to greater exposure • If organizations can support school gardens, maybe they can infiltrate the curriculum (After Case Studies, include “Innovation Solution” section to mention other ideas: storm water capture, bike blender [picture]) • Food Stamps • Don’t have education aspects to it but they should • Ways of growing food cheaper and saving money
33
APPENDIX - D OPTIMAL PLOT SIZE: CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The calculations for this spreadsheet are derived from three personal inputs; the amount of money, time and land a given grower is willing to invest in urban agriculture. Tools The total costs for tools (shovel, rake, screws, etc.) can vary in quantity and cost per tool. These costs are not necessarily impacted by the plot area and may vary depending on the supplier. The quantity of tools necessary will depend on a given individuals available resources. In relation to this spreadsheet, other tools may be added or subtracted by simply inserting/removing rows. The five tools listed are by no means the only tools necessary and used for example purposes. Total costs associated with necessary tools are subtracted from the “Budgeted Amount” cell to calculate the value used to determine the “Potential Size” value under the Personal Monetary Investment section. Individual Material Cost Reflecting 4x8 Plot A 4x8 plot is used to determine a base-line cost for garden assembly, in costs per square foot. The 4x8 garden plot is arguably the most common raised bed configuration constructed for urban agriculture. Cost per Ft2 The cost per square foot value is calculated by taking the sum of the costs for lumber, soil and mulch; and dividing the sum by 32 square feet. Costs associated with such materials do not increase in a linear fashion in the real-world; but the scale at which this spreadsheet will be utilized allows for this assumption. Hence, the costs shown for lumber, soil and mulch represent a cost per square foot. Optimal Plot Size The “Optimal Size” found within the Optimal Plot Size section represents the actual square footage a potential grower can operate, based on their combination of money, time and land investment. A conditional statement is utilized to select the “Potential Size” cell value from the section representing the most limiting factor for the particular grower. Although a given grower may have a large area to grow and nothing but time to garden, if limited funds are available, a large garden is not possible.
34
APPENDIX - E CITY OF MILWAUKEE - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CHARGE ADJUSTMENT POLICY (2005)
35
36
37
The Storm Water Management Charge 2010
The Storm Water Management Charge is a tool for communities to invest in reducing pollution from storm water runoff. Storm water is water from rain and melting snow that flows off roofs, driveways, parking lots, playgrounds, streets, and other hard, or impervious, surfaces. The water washes industrial chemicals, gas, oil, antifreeze, road salt, detergents, pesticides, pet waste, and other pollutants into storm drains. The storm drains dump the polluted water, without treating it, directly into Lake Michigan and local rivers. Storm water is the largest polluter of streams, rivers, and lakes. Storm Water Management monies pay for projects to prevent storm water pollution of natural waterways and to operate and maintain storm sewers. The Storm Water Management Charge was introduced in the 2006 City of Milwaukee budget. Previously, the costs for city sewers, including storm and sanitary sewers, were covered by sewer charges based on drinking water use. The Storm Water Management Charge distributes the cost of storm water programs to non-profit and taxexempt organizations, and non-residential and commercial property owners with multiple buildings, parking lots, and paved surfaces. The charge applies to all properties, occupied or vacant, and empty lots. The charge appears on the Milwaukee Municipal Services Bill administered by the Milwaukee Water Works. The charge is based on the amount of impervious surface area of a property. A typical residential property has an average impervious surface area of 1,610 square feet. This measurement is called an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). The number of ERUs for non-residential, commercial developed property and vacant, improved property is calculated by dividing the impervious surface area of the property by 1,610. Residential buildings (house, apartment, condominium) with one to four units are billed $14.00 per quarter or $56.00 per year. Non-residential developed property, buildings with more than four residential units, and vacant, improved property: The charge is based on the amount of hard surface area of the property. Calculate the number of ERUs for a property by dividing the square footage of hard surface of the property by 1,610. Condominium associations are charged based on the amount of hard surface area of the entire property. The charge is billed quarterly to the condominium association. For commercial customers billed quarterly, the charge is $14.00 per ERU per quarter. For commercial customers billed monthly, the charge is $4.67 per ERU per month. My residential property has more than four dwelling units. What is the charge? Residential properties with more than four units are considered commercial developed property when calculating the charge. How are condominium charged? Condominium associations are charged based on the amount of impervious surface area of the entire property. Calculate the number of ERUs for the property by dividing the impervious surface area of the property by 1,610. The charge is billed quarterly to the condominium association. What is an “improved� property? An improved property is a parcel of land that has a building on it and/or any impervious surface, such as a paved parking area and sidewalks.
38
Storm Water Management Charge - p. 2 Where does the Storm Water Management Charge appear? The charge appears on the Municipal Services Bill as a separate line item. The billing unit, ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) is shown, along with the total charge. The city does not bill fractions of an ERU. Why is the charge on my “water bill”? The Municipal Services Bill includes charges for drinking water, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) sewerage treatment, and certain municipal services provided in the City of Milwaukee. It is more cost-effective to include all charges on one bill rather than to issue multiple bills. The Milwaukee Water Works manages the billing and forwards the collected charges to the city treasurer for distribution to city departments and the MMSD. I never received a “Municipal Services Bill” before. Why am I receiving one now? The City of Milwaukee now has the capability to charge properties that receive city services but no water or sewer service. Previously, only those receiving water and sewer service paid local sewerage charges and snow and ice control charges. New accounts were established for properties that previously were exempt from city service charges. How do I appeal the Storm Water Management Charge if I believe it was incorrectly calculated or charged to my property? City ordinance established a flat fee for residential properties, so there is no appeal process for residential properties. Appeals are available for non-residential and commercial developed property and vacant improved property. To appeal a Storm Water Management charge, telephone the Milwaukee Water Works Customer Service Center, (414) 286-2830, and leave your name, property address, telephone number, and if available, an email address. The Water Works will forward your appeal to the Department of Public Works for investigation. If I am a tenant of the property, can I be held responsible for payment of the Storm Water Management Charge? Your payment responsibility is determined by the terms of your lease, which is a private agreement between you and your landlord. The city is not a party to the lease, and will not become involved in a disagreement between landlord and tenant. The landlord or property owner is responsible for payment of the charge if the tenant fails to pay under terms of the lease. What happens to unpaid Storm Water Management Charges? If charges for this service remain unpaid for two or more billing quarters, the charges will be transferred to the property tax account in September and are a lien against the property. Do tax-exempt properties, such as churches, non-profit organizations, and government-owned properties pay the Storm Water Management Charge? All properties are charged for use of the city storm sewers, including properties that are otherwise exempt from paying property taxes. I’m selling my house. How do I transfer responsibility for the Storm Water Management Charge and other charges to the new owner? The Storm Water Management Charges billed to a property sold after July 1, 2006 are the responsibility of the new owner and are handled in the same manner as all current charges (drinking water, sewer, solid waste, snow and ice charge). If a property is sold mid-quarter, for example, the total bill is prorated according to the time of sale so seller and buyer split the cost. Para una explicación en Español por favor llame (414) 286-2830. MWW 2010
2
39
APPENDIX - F EXCERPTS FROM THE KANSAS CITY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO ON-SITE SALES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS
40
41
42
Printed May 14, 2012 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US