11/02/98 LCEC AgP
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
LAND CONSERVATION MEETING CONFERENCE ROOM
• MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1998 7:00 A.M.
AGENDA
1. A. Roll Call
Riesen
Svoboda
Bruno
B . Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A . Land Conservation Committee Meeting Minutes for September 28, 1998
(Att.-#2A draft)
B . Land Conservation Committee Meeting Minutes for October 12, 1998 (Att.-
#2B draft)
3. REVIEW DRAFT
A . Review updated draft report (Att.-#3 draft)
4. MARKET VALUES
The following two changes should be made to the "Market value" and "Acres" column of
the "Vacant land with development potential" table (handout from the October 12 meeting
1. Map number 101 has 12.6 acres and its market value is $50,000 not
$35,000.
2. Map number 39 has a market value of $245,000.
5. EXAMPLE OF EASEMENT VALUATION
Dean Riesen and Dennis Jabbs
6. PUBLIC EXAMPLES OF DONATION
Dean Riesen and Tom Dahlberg
7. ADJOURNMENT
r
SHOREWOOD LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING O
• MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
7:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was convened at 7:15 a.m.
A. Roll Call
Present
Ad Hoc Committee Members: Frank Svoboda and Fred Bruno
Also present: Jim Hurm, City Administrator; Brad Nielsen,
Planning Director; Paula Callies, Planning Commission
Liaison; and Erica Hahn, Planning Intern
B. Review Agenda
Fred Bruno suggested that Frank Svoboda chair the meeting in
Chair Riesen's absence.
k
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Land Conservation Committee Meeting Minutes of September 14,
1998 were approved.
3. REVIEW PACKET
4. CITY AS EASEMENT HOLDER
The Committee discussed the issues involved with the City
holding an easement. Fred Bruno asked if the best way to
deal with easements is for a governmental agency to hold an
easement (as opposed to a private nonprofit organization).
Administrator Hurm stated that some people may not want to
donate an easement or land to a government body and would
prefer to donate to a private organization. He continued
that such an organization could be setup like the Parks
Foundation. Frank Svoboda suggested that the Committee look
into the Foundation's charter. Administrator Hurm said that
their main focus is on parks. Erica Hahn suggested that the
City could partner with the Minnesota Land Trust. If people
did not want to deal with the City, the City could refer them
to the land trust. The Minnesota Land Trust usually deals
with larger parcels, but may consider handling smaller
parcels if the land has a significant resource. '
Mr. Bruno asked if it would make a difference if a nonprofit
organization was run by the City. Administrator Hurm said
page 1
by staff or an organization set up by the City. Mr. Nielsen4
• wondered if it were necessary, if a nonprofit organization
would be able to bring suit against a landowner. He added
that it would be easy for staff to monitor easements if it
only requires a site inspection once a year. Ms Callies said
that if someone is clearing brush on their land it is not
going to be easy to notice it. Mr. Nielsen responded by
saying that landowners would be responsible to repair any
damage they cause.
Administrator Hurm brought up that a post ad hoc committee
group may tackle these issues. Mr. Svoboda offered that
perhaps the current Committee could follow up on
implementation in 12-18 months, and that the Committee would
not meet every other week.
Mr. Bruno asked Ms Hahn to look into public funding of
easement monitoring. Mr. Svoboda suggested that the LCMR
might have funding for monitoring. Mr. Bruno said that
soliciting donations of money from private people to raise
funds for monitoring.
4. COMMITTEE REPORT
Ms Hahn will send the Committee all of the sections of the
Committee Report that have been drafted. Administrator Hurm
suggested that the Committee go through the report outline
item by item at the next meeting. He said that it is
important to discuss everything before the report is written.
Mr. Nielsen asked if Committee has discussed all options.
For example, loaning money to neighborhood groups and
outright purchase. Administrator Hurm suggested that those
options be put on the next Committee meeting agenda. Mr.
Nielsen asked if we have the City Attorney's legal opinion on
the City loaning neighborhood groups money.
x
d
5. LANDOWNER REGISTRY PROGRAM
The--Committee discussed the benefits of a landowner registry
to get people interested in land conservation. Mr. Bruno
suggested that it would be a good intermediate step in the
conservation process. Examples of people who have protected
their land might generate more support and interest.
6. TAX WORKSHOP
Mr. Bruno mentioned the workshop on tax strategies for land
conservation, November 20 in Roseville. William Huton is the
speaker at the workshop and the author of a book on
conservation law. Mr. Bruno suggested that if Mr. Huton
• lives in the Twin Cities perhaps he could speak to the
Committee.
page
D)?.
4A
opt
SHOREWOOD LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1998 SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
7:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM
MINUTES
1. A. CALL TO ORDER
i
The meeting was convened at 7:10 a.m.
Ad Hoc Committee Members Present: Chair Dean Riesen, Frank Svoboda, and Fred
Bruno.
Also Present: Jim Hurm, City Administrator, Paula Callies, Planning Commissioner; and
Erica Hahn, Planning Intern.
5
}
B. REVIEW AGENDA
Nothing further was added to the agenda.
2. MINUTES APPROVED
Minutes from September 28 were approved with the following correction on page two, paragraph
one. "Mr. Bruno suggested that there are two ways to create easements. One is to follow the
. Minnesota Conservation Easement Act for tax benefits, and the other way does not provide any tax
benefits." was changed to "Mr. Bruno indicated that if you follow the Minnesota Conservation
Easement Act you will not necessarily receive an income tax deduction and that you should be
aware of the IRS standards for charitable contributions."
3. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT
The Committee discussed the draft Committee Report. Fred Bruno offered to meet with Erica
Hahn to discuss the report's writing style.
It was suggested that an example of how landowners receive tax benefits should be included in the
report. Administrator Hurm pointed out that there is an example as an appendix, but it has not
been distributed yet. Erica Hahn will ask Ray Rossinni to review the example to be certain that it is
accurate.
Chair Riesen suggested that in the report the point should be clearly made that conservation
easements do not require public access. Mr. Bruno gave a presentation at his homeowners
association about the Committee and land conservation. People at the meeting were concerned that
if they gave a conservation easement to the City that there would be public access to their land.
Mr. Bruno also indicated that most people associate easements with access, so it is important to get
this message across. It was agreed that the fact that public access is not required should also be
stressed in the report. In addition to public access, Frank Svoboda suggested that citizens should
know that the City will not use eminent domain in the land conservation program. Paula Callies
suggested that the report should also stress that after a property has a conservation easement the
property will not look any different than before it had the easement. Mr. Bruno offered that a list
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page iii484
DRAFT 1028/98
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II
LIST OF TABLES un
TABLE OF CONTENTS lulu
I INTRODUCTION
1.1 COMMITTEE PURPOSE 33.
1.2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 44
1.2.1 SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS 44
1.2.2 PARAMETERS USED IN ANALYSIS 6
1.3 REPORT LIMITATIONS 6
2 INVENTORY OF LAND WITH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 87
• 3 EVALUATION OF LAND PROTECTION OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS12-14
3.1 PRIVATE LAND CONSERVATION 131
3. 1.1 DONATIONS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, RESTRICTED TITLES, AND
UNRESTRICTED TITLES 134L
3.1.2 REGISTRY PROGRAM 7-22,9
3.2 ASSIST RESIDENTS' PURCHASE OF LAND FOR SET-ASIDE THROUGH
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 2522
3.3 SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND DESIGNATIONS 3024
3.3.1 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM 3026
3.3.2 PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM 312.7.
3.4 OUTRIGHT PURCHASE 36x2
3.5 REGULATORY CONTROLS 464-1
3.6 CHOOSING A CONSERVATION METHOD 4742
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page iv48#
DRAFT 10128/98
• 4 IMPLEMENTATION: ACTION PLAN AND TIMELINE 4944
STEP 1 - APPROVE REPORT AND COMMIT TO PLANNING PROCESS 55 1"
14
STEP 2 - DETERMINE PLAN ADMINISTRATION _
STEP 3 - DEVELOP COMMUNITY VISION FOR OPEN SPACE: CITIZEN 605
INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC FORUMS 635$
STEP 4 - CREATE WORKING GROUP(S)
STEP 5 - EDUCATE RESIDENTS ABOUT LAND PROTECTION OPTIONS 645
STEP 6 - DEVELOP CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE PARCELS 6 ~
STEP 7 - COLLECT ADDITIONAL DATA
STEP 8 - IDENTIFY PRIORITY OPEN SPACE PARCELS 6Wa
STEP 9 - PROMOTE PLAN 70~
STEP 10 - FINALIZE PLAN 7065
STEP 11 - IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCES 7065
STEP 12 - PROMOTE PLAN 7065
STEP 13 - IMPLEMENT PLAN 7065`
STEP 14 - EVALUATE PLAN EFFECTIVENESS TO-6-5
STEP 15 - CONTINUE LONG-TERM PROGRAMS71~
DRAFT TIMELINE -
5 APPENDICES 736-9
APPENDIX INFORMATION SOURCES 736
APPENDIX MAP OF UNDERDEVELOPED PARCELS IN SHOREWOOD 6
APPENDIX SUMMARY DATA TABLES ~74
• APPENDIX
APPENDIX CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING VACANT UNDERDEVELOPED-
PARCELS. 77
APPENDIX CRITERIA USED TO PRIORITIZE OCCUPIED 7$~3
UNDERDEVELOPED PARCELS.
APPENDIX . A SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF THE INCOME TAX BENEFITS OF A
LAND OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT DONATION*. 797-4
APPENDIX . A SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF ESTATE TAX DEDUCTIONS FROM 8176
LAND OR EASEMENT DONATION. g1
APPENDIX . RESOURCES/PUBLICATIONS _
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 143
DRAFT 1028/98
1 Introduction
Many municipalities around the country have experienced rapid urban growth
and have struggled with balancing the need for development and preserving
the natural character of their communities. In recent years local governments
have taken on more fiscal responsibility for protecting open space in their
communities. Across the country, more and more citizens have approved park
and open space bond referenda, 70% nation wide in November 1996 (citation).
In the Twin Cities Metro area, many city governments have incorporated open
space protection in their comprehensive plans. Some of these initiatives have
begun at the grassroots level and others at the City Council or administrative
level.
Land conservation efforts in the City of Maplewood, which is 80% developed,
were initiated by a group of citizens concerned by proposed development in
their neighborhood. In 1993, Maplewood passed a $5 million bond referendum
• for open space acquisition. Maplewood residents were willing to shoulder the
cost of $24 per year per #axhousehold for 20 years. The process of land
acquisition has been an on-going process for a number of years. To date the
city has acquired 210 acres of open space. Maplewood also established an'
Open Space Committee of citizens to evaluate every underdeveloped parcel
larger than one acre in Maplewood. The city also modified its comprehensive
plan to include open space protection and created a Land Management Plan
that deals with issues such as on which open space parcels trails should be
developed.
In the west metro suburbs, an area of rapid growth, communities are also taking
action. The Eden Prairie Land Trust started a process to protect 96 acres in the
Minnesota River Valley, and in 1994 Eden Prairie passed a bond referendum of
$1.95 million to acquire the land. In 1995, Plymouth passed a $2.2 million
referendum to fund open space acquisition. Also, the Minnetonka City Council
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 2`-4:a4
DRAFT 1028/98
has established a citizen advisory committee to investigate open space
protection in its community. There 06 In addition there is an active member
chapter of The Minnesota Land Trust, a non-profit land conservation
organization. The Minnesota Land Trust has an active member chapter in the I
West Metro area that works with landowners to protect their land.
Why are communities investing their resources in protecting open space? What
do natural areas do for us? Natural areas give us a distinct sense of place.
provide recreational and educational opportunities and aesthetically enhance
our communities In addition to quality of life issues the landscape functions in
several ways to benefit people:
• filtering and cleansing air and water;
• recycling water including recharging ground water;
• intercepting rain and snow thereby slowing and reducing runoff;
• moderating extremes in climate, and;
• providing habitat for plants and animals.
•
`Gray' infrastructure e.g., roads and buildings has been the focus of our
communities' attention in developing _areas. Much of our community's
resources have been put into gray infrastructure because it provides us with
valuable services but it requires maintenance and repair. `Green'
infrastructure e a natural areas has relatively little overhead requires little
maintenance and appreciates in value over time Natural areas offer a great
deal to our communities but their contributions are sometimes taken for
granted.
Before European settlement the Minnetonka area was dominated by `Big
Woods' and prairie Big Woods are forests of sugar maple basswood. elm. red
oak and white oak trees The prairie in this area was a wet prairie and had
blue6oint grass cordarass cattails rushes and sedges Today, only ..a small
fraction of the pre settlement natural communities remains (See Appendix for
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 3484
DRAFT 1028'98
a map of pre-settlement vegetation and Appendix for a map of remaining
• significant natural areas.l
The Shorewood City Council recognizes the value of the natural environment in
44ts community and wishes to ensure that future residents will have
opportunities to enjoy the natural character of Shorewood in the future. Close
to ninety percent of Shorewood's land suited for development has been
developed. In light of this situation
sew, the City Council created an Ad Hoc Land Conservation
Committee in March 1998. The Council selected Dean Riesen to be Committee
Chair and Frank Svoboda and Fred Bruno also sat on the Committee.
1.1 Committee Purpose
I The Land Conservation Committee was established to research land
conservation options available to local government and to design an
• implementation program for land
(City of Shorewood, Resolution No. 98-025). The Committee's goal w-ais to
recommend a process to the City Council that will permanently protect and
increase the amount of natural open space in Shorewood. The Committee's
objectives were to:
1. Research land conservation tools available to local governments -fad
e ,
2. Educate City Council members and Shorewood residents about land
protection options;
- 3. Recommend a process to protect open space in perpetuity by either
creating a non-profit land conservation organization, or using an existing
land conservation organization;
4. Develop survey questions24 to assessideRtify
community support for public financing of open space acquisition;
5. Communicate with the Planning and Park Commissions about their roles
in the land conservation planning process; and
6. Collect preliminary data on parcels with development potential, i.e., lots
that can be subdivided:
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 448#
DRAFT 102898
&7. Recommend objectives and a work plan for a land conservation program
• in the form of a committee report to the Council by November 1, 1998.
This report summarizes a preliminary natural resource inventory,
describesdes land conservation alternatives for the City,
recommends the best alternatives; and an implementation program.
1.2 Scope and Methodology
The raRge-of alternatives analyzed way were land protection options suitable
for Tthe City of Shorewood. The Committee-a444- considered GGR gthe
City's Comprehensive Plan, its residents, and its financial and natural
resources. The Committee met bi-weekly from June to (November) 1998. In
addition to Committee members, Jim Hurm, City Administrator, Brad Nielsen,
Planning Director, and Erica Hahn, planning intern attended Committee
meetings. The Committee sought the assistance of legal, planning, financial,
and land conservation professionals (Appendix The Committee also
inventoried u rdeveteped-land with development in Shorewood to identify
peteria4 parcels with open space
1.2.1 Summary of Committee meetings
After the Committee developed its goals and objectives, it established a work
plan. Committee goals and objectives were refined in later meetings.
Staff reported on bond referenda for open space acquisition held in the Twin
City Cities Metro area. The Committee also reviewed the findings of AI Q"!AL}~
PiRaRGe an analysis of financing open space acquisition in
Shorewood done by Al Rolex. City Finance Director (Appendix
The Committee familiarized itself with current issues that the Planning and Park
Commissions were considering. Staff reported on the Planning Commission's
discussion of changes to the Comprehensive Plan's Natural Resource Section.
• The Committee also reviewed the Parks Commission's purpose and recent I
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 5484
DRAFT 1028198
• activities. The Committee discussed the results of the Park and Trail Survey
that was completed in 1998. The City of Woodbury's phone survey regarding
open space was also reviewed, and potential survey questions regarding open
space in Shorewood were discussed.
To gather information about eFdeveleped-parcels with development
potential, a worksheet was created for site visits. The worksheet included
information about the natural features of the site as well as basic information
about the parcel, e.g., acreage and zoning. Staff presented the Committee with
preliminary findings of the inventory. (Inventory results are in Section 2,
Inventory--of t=land with development potential! RVeet9FY" ses iGR of this epGo.)
The Committee discussed conservation easements as a land protection tool in
several meetings. Anne Haines, Land Protection and Chapter Specialist of the
Minnesota Land Trust, discussed land trusts and conservation easements with
the Committee. The Committee also studied a conservation easement
agreement between the City of Plymouth and Carlson Real Estate Company
(Appendix ) and a model easement agreement that was drafted by the
Minnesota Land Trust (Appendix Federal regulations regarding qualified
conservation contributions were reviewed (Appendix Dennis Jabbs, tax
accountant and Shorewood resident, discussed conservation easement
valuation with the Committee. The City Attorney was asked to comment on a
model conservation easement agreement assuming the City was the easement
holder (Appendix Jean Coleman, Land-use Planner and Attorney, aIS4
discussed with the Committee the role of the City as a holder of a-conservation
easements. Ray Rossini, attorney, spoke to the Committee about the estate tax
benefits of charitable donations, specifically conservation easements.
The Committee discussed other issues. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources' Scenic and Natural Areas Grant Program was considered as a
potential funding source for open space acquisition (Appendix The
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 64$f~
DRAFT 1028/98 b
Committee also discussed a4so-the offer from Shirley and Alvin Wagner's
• attorney to sell the Wagner's property to the City.
Planning and Parks Commissioners I
were provided with. the Committee's
meeting agendas and minutes {and were invited to Committee meetings to
discuss the role of the Commissions in the implementation of protection options
developed by the Committee}.
1.2.2 Parameters used in analysis
The Committee analyzed land protection options available to local governments
by considering Shorewood's specific circumstances. The parameters used in
analysis included the following:
• goals of Shorewood's comprehensive plan;
• the City's potential financial commitments;
• potential tax burden on citizens;
• cost-effectiveness of protection options;
• duration of the protection, i.e., temporary or perpetual;
• level of protection, i.e., some or no development allowed 9R the
• acreage, abundance, and distribution of eFdeveIGp9 parcels with
development potential in Shorewood;
• Shorewood's ability to honor legal, including maintenance, agreements
in the future;
• Shorewood's demographics;
• ecological functions of natural systems; and
• landowner rights.
1.3 Report Limitations
This report contains useful information on land conservation tools. It can be
• read and placed on the shelf, or the pFegFaff~ Committee's recommendations
Land Conservation Committee Report page 2484
DRAFT 1028/98
can be implemented. The City Council and Park and Planning Commissions
• must decide if and to what level the recommendations in the report are to be
carried out.
•
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 8484
DRAFT 1028/98
• 2 Inventory of Land with Development Potential
The first step in developing a process to protect open space is to gather
information about existing open space. The Committee compiled information
about land with development potential (fiefs -that GaR be sUbdivided) in
Shorewood. This data includes acreage, natural features, land value, structure
value (if applicable), development potential, zoning, and location relative to
other open space.
Ninety-seven vacant and 47 occupied parcels with development potential were
inventoried. For each parcel a number of factors were measured (see Appendix
for the list of factors). The average vacant parcel was 2_.04-3 acres, and the
average occupied parcel was somewhat larger, 3.4& acres (Table Some
vacant parcels had small structures, but most were not developed. Occupied
parcels were primarily residential.
•
Table . Acreage Summary of Vacant and Occupied Land with
Development Potential.
Vacant Occupied Overall Total
Number of Parcels 97 47 144
Total Acreage 189.0 156.8 347.5
Average Acreage 2.0 3.4 2.7
Minimum Acreage 0.4 0.8
Maximum Acreage 13.0 7.7
Each parcel's natural features were inventoried. Natural features included
dominant species and covertype, e.g., woodland or wetland. The Committee
compiled general information about natural features. A detailed inventory was
not done because it would have been4a expensive and time consuming to do a
detailed study of every parcel in Shorewood with development potential. (A teF
sly It was noted which parcels appeared to have ecological
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 9484
DRAFT 1028/98
value. e.a., a relatively intact natural community, or sensitive natural resources,
. e.g., steep slopes.
In the area where parcels occurred 4housing density was estimated. assessed
. The zoning district of each parcel with
development potential as4n_was recorded. The number of immediately
adjacent residential units was alse-used to estimate asp-Feas=;fe_<9-the
number of people that would be served if the parcel would become permanent
public open space.
Property values were taken from the Hennepin County Tax Records ¢baok-94.
These pP-roperty values ' represent the value of property based on its
current use and do not reflect a property's highest and best use. fThe market
value of some-of the eleven largest-tl:e parcels was estimated by the Hennepin
County Assessor's Office.}
. Development potential was determined by the number of potential lots into
which the parcel could be subdivided. The number of potential lots was
calculated for each parcel with the allowable density and the amount of
buildable land.
To assess the availability of open space in Shorewood neighborhoods, the
presence of public permanent open space in each -4.f2half -section was
recorded. kA few 44half= sections that-io- Shorewood is in include mother
citiesy. The area that the Cites as in these half-sections was
much smaller than a regular half-section, so whG6e area in ShGFeIAXAACJ these
small half-sections- was small were combined with adjacent GtheF half-sections
so the areas compared were of similar sizes.} Open space was considered to
be any park or other natural area that has public access and is permanently
protected. This classification does not include lakes. Another measure of open
space availability used was the distance from inventoried parcels to the nearest
public open space.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 1049
DRAFT 1028/98
• Parcels' relationship to adjacent natural areas was estimated. For instance,
some parcels expand adjacent natural areas, others serve as a buffer for
wildlife or as permeable surface to control storm water runoff. To estimate these
functions, it was noted if the studied parcels are adjacent to parks or other
natural areas, including lakes.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Natural Heritage and
Nongame Research Program reviewed its database for any significant natural
features in and around Shorewood. There are eight known occurrences of
special animals of concern and one geological process (see Appendix for
descriptions). Of the eight plant and animal occurrences, six species were
observed, see Table-.--.
Table . Plant and animal occurrences in and around Shorewood.
Last Minnesota Federal
• Observed Status Status
Date
Red-shouldered hawk* Buteo lineatus 1994 special concern none
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1998 special concern threatened
Blanding's turtle* Emydoidea blandin1994 threatened none
Fox snake Elaphe vulpina 1939 none^ none
Least darter Etheostoma microperca 1997 special concern none
Pugnose shiner Notropis anopenus 1941 special concern none
*observed twice
no legal status but rare and may become listed if decline continues
All of the observed species, except the least darter, are species of concern
because their habitat has been altered or destroyed. Habitat alteration and
destruction can include wetland filling, increased turbidity in lakes, forest
fragmentation, and loss of native vegetation. Red-shouldered hawk. Blanding's
turtle, and bald eagle populations have declined. In Minnesota, both fish
species have limited distributions and few major population centers. In addition
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 11484
DRAFT 1028/98
to habitat loss and alteration. the Blanding's turtle and fox snake populations
are declining because they are collected for sale as pets.
In Minnesota it is estimated that there are less than 200 red-shouldered hawk
pairs. However, its range in Minnesota has always been limited, so it is difficult
to determine a `healthy' red-shouldered hawk population It relies on large
contiguous forests, and the increase in open country due to agriculture and
urbanization has led to more red-tailed hawk habitat.
The bald eagle is a federally endangered species in the rest of the continental
United States, but because of increased nesting success it is listed as state
threatened in Minnesota. The bald eagle population has risen dramatically and
some suggest that it should be removed from the federally threatened list.
The significant geological feature is a stagnation moraine, a hill that is the result
of glacial deposition. The moraine itself is not in Shorewood, but a vantage
• point that has a good view of the moraine is in Shorewood. The vantage point
is important because it is a place where a well preserved example of a
significant geological process can been seen.
Data collected on the natural features of parcels with development potential
provide a base of information that the City can use in its land conservation
efforts. The City will require a more detailed inventory of parcels that a-r-em_ ay
be considered for protection. A list of suggested factors to measure and
estimate for each site is listed in the Site Selection portion of Section 444e
imple'meRtatien se-tiOR
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 124S#
DRAFT 1028198
3 Evaluation of Land Protection Options and
Recommendations
The Committee researched conservation tools and developed ^ft°at4vG
methods for conserving land in Shorewood. For each option, the Committee's
findings are described and its appropriateness for Shorewood is discussed. A
concise statement summarizes hew -the protection toolrnoaty th° vb;ecti
the Comm* tt°° Finally, recommendations are made for each ooptionalt° t e.
The implementation of conservation tools iswill be described in the Action Plan.
e# Ssection 4.
,
o;
Using comprehensive planning as a conservation tool was not researched
because the City has already integrated open space preservation in its
comprehensive plan.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 134,84
DRAFT 1028/98
•
3.1 Private land conservation
There are a number of land protection options available to private landowners.
This section discusses conservation easement and land donations as well as
land registry programs. The most popular option is conservation easements
because landowners receive tax benefits while retaining ownership. Registry
programs raise awareness about land conservation and recognize landowners
who value the natural environment of their property.
3.1.1 Donations of conservation easements, restricted titles, and
unrestricted titles
Committee Findings
I Conservation easements
• A conservation easement is a legal agreement in which landowners voluntarily
restrict the use of their land. Conservation easements are a flexible protection
tool. The terms of #.e an agreement are determined mutually between grantee
and grantor, so easements can be written to accommodate the needs of both
landowners and easement holders.- Easements are filed with the county in
which the land is located. -Landowners can permanently protect their land by
donating or selling a conservation easement. Organizations that qualify to hold
conservation easements are land conservation organizations and government
agencies. With an easement, landowners can donate or sell any of their
property rights, e.g., the right to farm or the right to develop.
Conservation easements permanently protect the resources specified in the
agreement. 'Term' easements, which are not perpetual, do not allow
permanent protection and typically do not provide any tax benefits. Easements
are tailored to each situation, so an easement agreement can identify A _section
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 1448
DRAFT 1028/98
of a parcel where development may occur and another section where all or
some development is restricted. Conservation easements can be written to
ensure that current land-use, such as parkland remaining recreational
remains the same over time.
Landowners can receive a substantial tax benefit when they donate a
conservation easement to a qualifying non-profit organization. The
easements must protect resources that are of public benefit such as I
providing scenic vistas, protecting water resources, or providing open space.
However, a conservation easement does not require public access.- It should
be noted that putting an easement on land that is not suitable for development
e.g., a wetland, may not provide any tax benefit.
Easements become a part of a property's title and all future owners must comply
with the terms of the easement landowners feel differently in the future, they
cannot 'undo' tie a perpetual easement. It is the responsibility of the easement I
holder to monitor the property to ensure that the terms of the easement are
being observed.
The value of an easement determines a donor's income tax deduction. The
value of the easement must be determined by a qualified appraiser familiar with
IRS requirements for charitable donation deductions. First, the land is
-.appraised with all of its development rights. Then the land is appraised with the
conservation easement. The difference between the two appraisals is the value
of the easement. If the easement qualifies under IRS code as a charitable
donation, the easement value can be taken as an income tax deduction. The
deduction in one year can be' up
to 30% of the# donor's aadjusted gross income. This deduction can be taken
annually for 5 consecutive years so the entire value of the donation can be
taken as a deduction (see Appendix for an example). Donated easements
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 15484
DRAFT 10/28/98
must have permanent restrictions to qualify for any deductions. Putting an
easement on a titlee4 may reduce the property's resale value.
I
Landowners whothat: want to protect their land may wish to donate their land
instead of a conservation easement. Property that has an easement or other
limiting legal mechanism on it has a restricted title. Landowners can donate a
restricted title to ensure that the property's land use does not change in the
future.
Title donations
Tax issues with title donations are similar to those involved with easement
donations. As with conservation easement donation, the donation of property
provides an income tax deduction. If there are no legal restrictions on the title,
the deduction is equal to the full fair market value of the property. If landowners
donate their property in bequest, i.e., in their will, and are concerned about
future use of the property, they can discuss what their wishes are for the land in
a letter of understanding to the recipient. Easement and title donations made in
bequest are not deductible from income taxes, but they 44 lower the value of an
estate a444-thus-lowering the estate taxes that heirs pay on their inheritancea-r-
aed. Donating land with reservation of life estate allows landowners to live
on the property for the rest of their lives and landowners may at the °°m° tiFne
receive an income tax deduction. After the donation, while the donor is still
living, the title is held by the land conservation organization. If a landowner
I donates the fiflee -their land in bequest, they should make certain that the
receiving organization can accept the donation.
A landowner may not be able to use the entire income tax deduction from a land
or easement donation if their income is low relative to the value of their property.
If a landowner cannot realize tl4e-all of the tax benefit from a donatin4onthe+r
fa-R4, donations can be staggered. In such a case, se that a conservation
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 1644W
DRAFT 102898
easement is donated first, so the landowner can take deductions for five years.
• Then the landowner can donate the title to the land (whose value would have
been decreased by the easement) and can receive tax benefits for an additional
five years. Similarly, landowners could stagger a donation by donating partial
interests. In this situation, the landowner retains the title until full interest has
been donated. While staggering donations over a number of years may help
landowners realize more income tax benefits, the IRS does not value partial
interest donations as much as full interest donations. Subsequently, the total
tax deduction may be smaller when partial interests are donated than if the full
title were donated. Landowners who cannot take advantage of the entire
deduction can also-sates wait to make the donation in a year when they expect
a higher than average income. To lower the easement value, so that the full
income tax deduction can be utilized, one could put an easement on a portion
of the property or limit only some land use on the property. it ShOUld be Roted
wetlaRd, or- other use may ---pmvide aRy tax
•
Public ownership of open space also allows for public access
Estate lanning
The estate tax system is based on the value of assets including proper
a raisals. When one spouse dies marital exemptions are unlimited Thus
upon dying a spouse can give all of their wealth to their surviving spouse and
the surviving spouse pays no estate tax In 1998 there is a $625,000
exemption for estate taxes for family or other recipients The $625,000
exemption is scheduled to increase to $1,000,000 by 2006 For heirs to receive
estate tax reductions from a conservation easement the decedent must have
owned the property for 3 or more years before death There is an estate tax
exclusion that is in addition to the reduction from the taxable estate of the value
of the easement. This additional exclusion is limited to $100.000 in 1998,
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 174-84
DRAFT 1028198
$200.000 in 1999. $300,000 in 2000, $400,000 in 2001 and $500,000 in 2002
(See Appendix for a simple example.)
The value of land in an estate is subject to reduction if the value of the
easement is less than 30% of the value of the land After reduction by the value
of the easement. 40% of the value of the land is the maximum estate tax
exclusion for a conservation easement donation.
Land exchance
Another alternative is 'trade land' donations. If a willing landowner owns
property that is not valuable in terms of conservation, e.g., a developed
suburban lot, the parcel can be donated to a nonprofit organization with the
understanding that the property will be sold to finance an easement or title
purchase of another parcel that does have conservation value (Altmann 1997).
Fiscal Analysis
Staff time would be the largest expense associated with accepting conservation
easement and title donations. Staff would be involved with
contacting appreaGhiRq landowners and negotiating easement terms. The City
Attorney would be needed to draft and file easements and titles appropriately.
The City would be responsible in perpetuity for the cost of monitoring easement
agreements and, if necessary, enforcing the terms of the agreement. Some
private non-profit land conservation organizations require that the easements
they hold are endowed because the financial responsibility of holding an
easement is expensive and for-iR the-ueFy long term. Owning land could be
expensive if the property requires intensive maintenance or is liability in other
ways, i.e., insurance.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 18484
DRAFT 1028/98
•
Discussion
Conservation easement and land donations are attractive land protection
options for the City because they are incentive-based protection options.
However, there are some potential problems associated with donations It is
important that potential donors are aware that if the value of their easement or
land donation is large relative to their income they may not be able to deduct
the full amount of the donation
Tax benefits for landowners can be great, but not in all circumstances. Tax laws
are continually being modified, and landowners should consult a professional
tax advisor who is familiar with current tax laws regarding conservation
easement and charitable donations. Landowners should also seek the advice
of a qualified appraiser who is experienced with charitable gifts.- it is impo4af#
that pGteRtial deReFs aFe awaFe that if the value of theiF easemeRt eF land
• ` en°tion is lame relative t'Gt the;F iRGeFAe they may net be able to deduGt the
amount of the GIGRatk~R.
Conservation easements allow property to stay in private hands, so
landowners continue to pay taxes on the property. However, ir, the past s^me
conservation easements may have -occasionally reduced property values and
hence lowered property tax rates. A reduction in property taxes resulting from a
conservation easement should not be a motivating factor for donating or selling
an easement because the effect conservation easements have on property
values and 4s-tax rates depends on the discretion of county assessors.- ' At the
same tiR4 Parcels with conservation easements have commonly increased
the value of its surrounding property. This is ° benefit to neighbors if their
property values inGFease aRd their pFepeFty tax Fates, de not inGrease. The effeGt
Land Conservation Committee Report page 194.8
DRAFT 102898
I ep!Rg in m in d+hne~90crOOf~~nonn~nnsn+inn n cnr, nr,re+
r
• Because the property tax benefits are an unknown, it should be clearly stated to
landowners that a property tax reduction should not be the primary reason for
an easement donation.
Landowners who wish to be certain that their land will be protected can donate
I a conservation easement to onea-4 organization and then donate the restricted
title to another organization. Both donations can result in income tax
deductions.
Easement holders must be able to defend the easement. Ea&emeRtThe holders
monitor+4g and enforce44g- the terms of the easement.
defed the eas meRt. SG any nonprofit land conservation organizations
onitor property on a regular basis. If the City holds a
• conservation easement it should document the physical features of the property,
so the terms of the easement can be enforced more easily. If the agreement is
broken by the grantor, the holder can file suit for compensation or to correct the
damage.
To ease monitoring and avoid legal conflicts easement holders should make a
point of informing future landowners about the terms of the easement. In the
easement agreement, the City could require that the landowner be responsible
for any legal fees if the landowner broke the terms of the agreement.
Conservation easements are a versatile tool, and each agreement is tailored to
the needs of the grantor and grantee. The City would have flexibility when
committing to a monitoring regime and could make certain that the monitoring is
feasible in terms of cost. The City could also reject easements that would
require too much administration.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 20484
DRAFT 1028/98
The City of Woodbury has had difficulty enforcing scenic easements. Scenic
• easement are usually a strip of land att t erhaps 100 feet wide that is in a
natural state. The strips of land serve to screen residential areas from
commercial areas or to keep the area around a lake or wetland in a natural
state. Woodbury's experience has been that L-landowners who owned the land
when the easement was granted bought into the idea of the easement.
YVL ~However, the city has encountered problems when subsequent
owners either do not know the easement is on the deed or do not want the
screen or natural area on their property. In addition, &some people have used
FesideRtS r„a~the protected strips as a wastel^`crur,d an-dump for grass
clippings and brushh in the 6#0. -To raise awareness of the easements, Tthe
city jjWeriodically remindsed residents with restricted titleseas~ that the
easements are in place. is in WaGe to raise awaFenes Now Woodbury
will accept dedications of scenic strips easement°, but it will not accept scenic
easements-easeme;-G. f peFsenal Steve Kermn-ik, Woodbury's
Environmental Planner, personal communication).
Woodbury and the City of Lake Elmo recently partnered with the Minnesota
Land Trust to protect open space in their communities. Developers granted
easements on the open space reserved in a cluster design. Some of the
easements are held jointly between the land trust and city. _
If the City sells an open space parcel to a private or another public party, it could
put an easement on the title before selling Also if existing park land or other
public land had a unique or highly sensitive resource conservation easement
would also be desirable.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 2143
DRAFT 1028198
Other considerations are the~"~, TeFe are liabilities associated with holding a title,
• e.g., insurance and maintenance. Also, if the land is held by a public entity, it is
not contributing to the local tax base. Holding the title to land that requires
continuous or extensive maintenance e.g.. controlling noxious weeds, or land
that has other liabilities would only be reasonable in a couple of situations. One
of these situations is if the Council and community support accepting the
donation and funds have been secured for restoring the natural community on
the property. (The restoration potential of the land would have to be
professionally assessed.) Property that is donated without any conservation or
open space value should be sold on the open market to raise funds for
acquiring an easement or title to land with conservation value.
SummaryGemme Rt OR Menting I b-ie„+E„nc
Soliciting and accepting -donations and holding conservation easements,
restricted titles, and unrestricted title meets the objectives of assisting voluntary
private land conservation and protecting land (to the degree specified in
. easement agreements) in perpetuity without the cost of buying easements or
land. ,
Recommendations
The City should not advise residents on tax matters. Instead it should inform
them of their options and advise t"~FefeFthem to consult a tax and legal
professionals.
Conservation easement donations
Solicit and accept easement donations E^ emeRts are n gGGGI GptiGR in
if acquisition is too costly or unnecessary, e.g., when the
owners want to continue to live on the land.
rFes ~ ~re~GGRGei:y t'GR easement 1 O girl be rln ~hle.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 22484
DRAFT 1028198
• Tae-Gity Ghould Reject easements that require intensive administration and
• make landowners responsible for legal fees if landowners break the terms of
the agreement.
The Develop a list of information required to monitor each
easement. The information should be easy to duplicate so future city staff
can monitor the terms of the easement effectively and efficiently.
Restricted and Unrestricted Title Donations
• Accept restricted or unrestricted title donations TAs+eif there are few
costs associated with holding a title and the local tax base is not affected
tremendously,
eXGel!eRt rtnt.en to nnnserve epeR space
t
e.g., GGRtFOlliRg RGX*Gus weeds, or IaRd that has otheF liabilities w9uld GRIY
. Accept+eg-& land donations may also he advisable -if the property has
conservation value and an easement donation is not feasible for the
landowner.
Estate planning
Use estate planning as an incentive for donations.
Land Exchange
ExchangeELG4enge land to raise funds for open space protection if the
-transaction is not more effort than the potential revenue is worth.
3.1.2 Registry program
Committee Findings
Landowners can register their property with a land conservation organization.
In doing so, they make a non-binding promise to be a steward of the land. The
• land conservation organization then recognizes landowners with a plaque or
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 234W
DRAFT 1028/98
certificate, sometimes at a ceremony or public function. These events are
• intensively publicized in local media.
Typically, registry managers are biologists or ecologists who can advise
landowners on land management. A hepefit fe YRegistered landowners cans
consulter free of charge with a natural resource professional about their land.
Landowners in a registry program will generally inform the organization when
they sell their property, so the organization has a chance to acquire the property
or contact the next owners. Registry programs usually focus on a single natural
resource or location.
Fiscal Analysis
Costs involved with a registry program would include staff time for the program's
administration, landowner contact, planning events, plaques, and publicity.
Discussion
Registry programs acknowledge landowners who have protected (not
necessarily legally) their land and educate landowners and the public about
land conservation. Publicity also encourages other landowners to register their
land. The educational and promotional aspects of registry programs might
foster more support for the City's land conservation efforts. However, land in a
registry program is not legally or permanently protected.
The most efficient way
to reach conservation and education goals simultaneously may be to have a
registry as a component of an easement program when residents put
• easements on their property they are invited to register their land.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 24484
DRAFT 102898
• Parcels with development potential in Shorewood are small and residential in
character so an ecologist or other natural resource professional may not be
needed to advise landowners about land management. If registered
landowners are interested in learning about the natural communities on their
property the City can refer them to a land conservation organization. This might
require an informal partnership or other working relationship with such an
organization The City can also have on hand and distribute information about
the best management practices for the natural areas native to Shorewood.
Summary
Registry programs educate the public and raise awareness about land
. conservation.
Recommendation
Develop 4&-Gwr--a registry program that is suited to the City's
goals and resources.
re invited to register their laRd
native to SheFewGed.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 254,84
DRAFT 10128/98
• 3.2 Assist residents' Purchase of land for set-aside through
special assessment procedures
Committee Findinas
The Land Conservation Committee researched a special assessment
procedure that would loan money to residents to purchase open space in their
neighborhood. Such programs are rare but have been implemented in various
forms
Allmann (1997) describes a "benefit assessment district" as a funding
mechanism which establishes a special assessment district to fund open space
acquisition. In this situation, the open space parcel is small in size and only
benefits a small number of citizens. Local governments can sell tax-exempt
bonds and a sales or property tax is assessed in the district to pay for the bond.
A benefit assessment district is a funding mechanism not a government unit.
• The following example le of a benefit assessment district was taken from "Doing
Deals" by The Land Trust Alliance:
Citizens of Fairfield, California, successfully challenged the city's annexation
of three new subdivisions outside the town's jurisdictional boundary on the
grounds that the action would cause the "premature" conversion of open
space and agricultural land to urban uses. Under the resulting legal
settlement, the city created a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
(named after the legislators who developed the state enabling language),
composed of the new communities, as a way of financing additional open
space acquisition. Each developed parcel is assessed an annual tax, which
is deductible from federal income taxes. The Fairfield settlement also
created the Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation, a land
trust, to direct the acquisition of open space with the proceeds of the parcel
tax. Although the parcel tax has raised only about $300,000, the foundation
has received additional monies from state and private sources in loans,
commitments, and grants. (page 148)
In Shorewood, an open space acquisition assistance program may be similar to
special assessments for improvements. Neighbors that want to purchase a
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 2645 -
DRAFT 1028/98
parcel of undeveloped land in their neighborhood would first sign a petition that
• requests that the City fund the acquisition and then assess the neighbors for the
purchase price plus interest. The residents would also have to waive their to a
public hearing and appeal. The City Council would have to pass a resolution
accepting the petition, authorizing that an agreement be drafted between the
City and the petitioners, and identifying funds to be utilized. The parcel would
be sold on the open market. In the future, the petitioners can resell the parcels,
but any revenue above the original purchase price must be given to the City.
Petitioners may be required to form an incorporated neighborhood or other
association that can own property. Homeowners would have to make the
arrangements for the purchase and title changes. One of the petitioners would
be a contact person for dealing with the City, closing, and tax bills.
Fiscal Analysis
a Open space parcels in the assistance program will vary in value, so the funding
source that will provide the purchase money will have to come from various
funds.
There are a number of issues involved with funding:
• How long will the term of the loan be? For how long will the petitioners be
assessed, 5 years or 10 years?
• What would the City charge for interest on the loan? Would the interest be
above market rates, if so how much above market rates?
• What is the loss of potential tax revenue? How much of the tax base is the
City losing by not developing a parcel that has been set up for development,
i.e., has roads and sewer?
• If there were a conservation easement on the parcel, the tax revenue from
the lot would be minimal. In this case, should the acquired lot be tax
exempt?
• What is the impact on the rest of the City's programs to finance
• neighborhood acquisition?
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 27484
DRAFT 1028/98
• Would there be a minimum or maximum amount for an assessment?
•
Discussion
Many questions need to be answered before a special assessment program is
feasible. If the City loans public money to neighbors to buy open space there
must be public benefit. Is there conservation value in a parcel that is
surrounded by development on all sides? Is a local benefit such as acquisition
of one small parcel a benefit to the entire community? Should the City require
that a conservation easement be placed on the property? Would an easement
be a term easement, for 30 years for example, or would it be perpetual?
Should development on the property be prohibited until the loan is paid back.
Should neighbors that are assessed for open space acquisition have the
opportunity to sell the parcel for profit in the future?
• Private acquisition through special assessment will take parcels from the City'
s
tax base. However, any property that is acquired or protected by a conservation
easement will be taken off the tax base. The City invests public money into
property by building streets and setting up utilities, and if such property is set
aside as open space then the City is not getting paid back from property taxes
on that property.
The specifics of the purchase transaction are also an issue. Who would
purchase the property? Would the City buy the lot and then transfer it to the
petitioners, or would the City simply give the money to the petitioners to buy the
land?
Another difficulty with this program is multiple ownership. Would each party
• own an equal partial interest? Can petitioners own the parcel even if they sell
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 28489
DRAFT 102898
their house in the neighborhood? Would a partial interest of the open space
i property become a part of the title of each petitioner? Should the City require
that the petitioners form an association that can legally buy property?
Why should the City finance a loan when citizens can get a loan at a private
institution (and perhaps get a better interest rate)? Also, a bank can foreclose
on property within a year of defaulting on a loan, but it would take the City 4 to 5
years to foreclose a property. In that 4 or 5 years the City would loose not only
the money that would have been paid back on the loan but also the potential tax
revenue from the lot.
A special assessment for open space acquisition may be an appropriate land
conservation tool if there is money available and public investment in the
property, in terms of roads, sewer, etc..., has been minimal.
• Summary
Assuming that a conservation easement is put on the land, open space land is
protected in perpetuity to the extend outlined in the easement agreement.
Recommendations
• Special assessments should be a low priority protection option, but they
should be employed when a group of neighbors want to buy an open space
parcel in their neighborhood and there is financing available.
• It should be agreed, in writing, between the City and residents that the parcel
will remain open space for the long term, probably with an easement
agreement.
• The City should, in writing, state that the City will not build a tot lot on the
acquired open space parcel.
• The City should require that the petitioners form an association that can
legally own land
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 29489
DRAFT 1028/98
•
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 304-3
DRAFT 1028/98
3.3 Special programs and designations
Local governments have established programs that compensate landowners for
voluntarily restricting development on their property.
3.3.1 Transfer of development rights program
Committee Findings
Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs allow landowners to sell their
development rights and local governments to protect open space without the
cost of acquisition or buy conservation easements. A local government
establishes a 'sending' and a 'receiving' area. Sending areas have the
protected resource. Landowners in the sending area can sell their
development rights, in the form of development credits, to developers who can
then exceed the allowable building density on property in the receiving area. If
development credits are sold, a conservation easement is put on the property in
• the sending area. A land conservation organization or a local government can
hold the easement. The administering governmental agency approves or
disapproves credit transfers. The market determines the value of development
credits.
Fiscal Analysis
Costs associated with TDR programs include establishing the program and
managing the program in the long term. Staff time would be spent authorizing
and following development credit transactions. If easements are granted, would
• need to monitoring the easements.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 31483
DRAFT 1028/98
Discussion
For a TDR program to be successful there must a demand for development in
the receiving area, and residents in the receiving area must support increased
development in their community. TDR programs must also have community
support because private landowners and developers are potential program
participants.
TDR programs are an important conservation tool in developing communities
where one area has all or most of the protected resources.
I Summary TDR programs permanently protect open space (to the degree specified in
easement agreements) while compensating landowners who voluntarily restrict
development on their property.
Recommendation
Because land with development potential is scattered throughout the city
establishing a sending and receiving area would be difficult, if not impossible.
TDR programs are best suited for agricultural areas that are undeveloped and
are under pressure to become residential areas. A TDR program would be
neither feasible or desirable in Shorewood.
3.3.2 Purchase of development rights program
Committee Findinas
In a purchase of development rights (PDR) program a local government buys
development rights from willing landowners. Landowners voluntarily restrict
development on their property by granting the local government a conservation
easement. In some cases, private organizations hold easements so future
Councils cannot ignore or annul the easements. The local government
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 324}
DRAFT 102898
compensates the landowner for the easement's value. The value is determined
i by an appraiser hired by local governments. PDR programs are voluntary.
I
PDR programs ~picallx have a systematic way of ocnnrFaininn decidina which
parcels should be protected. To be considered for the program, property and
the terms of a proposed easement agreement must meet a list of locally defined
criteria. PDR programs frequently focus on one resource, i.e., protecting water
resources or a geographic aregagFiGUIWFal land, so every program has a
unique set of criteria. The City of Boulder, Colorado, has an informal
application process and the-areas of interest have been predetermined and aa-re
mapped. When the city's PDR program began in 1967, it had a formal
application process, but because the process was too bureaucratic the city
simplified the process. In the new application process, the city makes personal
contact with wig-interested landowners.
• In 1997, the Minnesota Legislature modified municipalities" permitted land use
control to allow PDR programs (Altmann 1997, Green Corridor Project 1998).
PDR programs have been funded by bond referenda or special tax
assessments (Altmann 1997). Financing of a PDR program could also come
from general funds, real-estate transfer taxes, or grants from state and federal
programs (Green Corridor Project 1998). The City of Boulder. QeleFade; funds
its PDR program with state grants and city sales taxes.
The Green Corridor Project (1998) listed five ways that local governments can
pay landowners: one lump sum, installment payments with interest, bargain
sale (landowner donates what the government cannot afford and takes an
income tax deduction), and like kind exchanges for other property. The fifth
payment option is a "securitized installment purchase agreements" and is
t described as follows:
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 334,W
DRAFT 10/28/98
...[T]he easement contract operates like a municipal bond. The
• landowner receives tax-exempt interest payments each year over the life
of the contract with principal paid at the end of the contract. The
landowner defers capital gains until the principal is paid and he or she
sells the contract like a bond. Some principal may be paid at settlement
with the remainder paid at the end of the contract. (Green Corridor
Project 1998, page 70)
The number of Fpayment options should be seen as an advantage to using
PDR programs to protect natural areas.
The administration of a a-PDR program involves an advisory board that reviews
applications and locates# nde parcels with significant natural resources-pa-r eG a
that are of interest The administering government also contacts landowners
who have a resource that is important to the community.
Elected officials and landowners usually sit on advisory boards. The City of
Boulder, Ce#eFade administers a PDR program with its nine elected Ocouncil
members and an Open Space Board of Trustees which is made up of five
member appointed by the city council.
"Protecting Your Community's Natural Resources: A Land Protection Toolbox
for Local Government" outlines nine staff responsibilities associated with PDR
programs (Green Corridor Project, 1998, page 71). These staff responsibilities
include:
• support for the advisory board and elected officials;
• program promotion;
• drafting easements;
• publishing reports and newsletters about the PDR program;
• real estate transfer duties;
• recording conservation easements;
• preparation of baseline data reports;
• easement monitoring and management (site visits, preparation of
monitoring reports, educating subsequent landowners, notification of
violations, enforcement of easement terms); and
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 34489
DRAFT 1028/98
• managing easement funds.
Fiscal Analysis
The largest cost of a PDR program is buying development rights. A46B~The I
expense of staff time administering the program would be a continuous long-
term cost
Discussion
Community backing is essential for the success of a PDR program because
public funds finance the program. Consensus among elected officials and
language supporting the program in the Comprehensive Plan is also important.
A PDR program could require or encourage landowners to donate a part of the
easement value. The donation would allow landowners to take a sustaRtial
income tax deduction. Besides deductions from donations, there are no tax
benefits for landowners in PDR programs. Payment to landowners participating
in PDR programs is subject to capital gains taxes (and income taxes?).
A PDR program will not protect resources without monitoring and enforcing the
terms of the easement agreement. Volunteers could help staff monitor
easements. Volunteers are not a reliable long term solution for monitoring
issues, however volunteer4p help gets people involved in and excited about
land conservation. By being involved in the process volunteers learn about
open space protection. In sum, citizen involvement generates community
support for programs and helps to meet public education goals.
PDR programs are a flexible conservation tool. Each community develops their
own PDR program. Communities tailor programs to meet their needs. Means of
compensating landowners are also flexible.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 354-94
DRAFT 1028/98
tiRg Qbinn
r~
Summary rnmmeRtS OR flAoO4 ti!
I
PDR programs permanently protect open space (to the degree that easement
agreements require), however the City must purchase conservation easements
and dedicate staff time to program administration.
Recommendations
• Support for a PDR program among the Council, Commissioners, and
citizens should be evaluated before the City commits to a program.
• If the City secures a stable funding mechanism, a PDR program would be a
feasible and desirable land conservation tool in Shorewood.
• The Comprehensive Plan should be amended to support the PDR program.
• Maintaining community support for the program should be an on-going
effort.
• Staff should perform the above mentioned staff duties on a continual long-
term basis.
• The PDR program should be applied in a situation where the City cannot
afford to purchase an open space parcel outright or the landowner wishes to
retain ownership.
• The Council, Commissioners, and citizens should develop a list of criteria to
evaluate the suitability of parcels for the program. Criteria should reflect the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land GenseFVat"GA
pen Space Plan.
• Initial parcel evaluation could be in the form of an application submitted to
the City.
• Because appraisals are expensive, minimum requirements, e.g., acreage
and cost, should be established so only parcels worth considering for the
program are appraised.
• Criteria should be used to prioritize parcels to be in the PDR program.
I • Program €evaluation should be basis/once a year.
• In order to avoid conflicts with landowners, potential program participants
must be made aware that they will receive no tax benefits from the program.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 364,W
DRAFT 100-8/98
3.4 Outright purchase
Committee Findings
This section describes the administration and funding of open space acquisition
by local governments. A "fee simple acquisition,"; or outright purchase, gives
local government control of property. As a-landowners local governments can
control future land use. Minnesota Statute 415.01 establishes the authority of
Minnesota cities to acquire land for public purposes.
Nonprofit land conservation organizations can help local governments with
acquisition. For instance, the City of Maplewood used the Land Conservation
Bank to handle its acquisition transactions. (Also if a landowner does not want
to deal with a government agency a private organization can negotiate and
acquire property. The private organization would subsequently sell the property
• to the local government. In situations where there is immediate threat of
development a nonprofit organization can raise money to acquire the land
quickly and later sell it to a local government once the local government has the
funds.
If a seller is willing, a local government can arrange a payment schedule that is
fitting to its resources. Payment can be in the form of a lump sum or installment
payments. Transactions other than a straight forward cash eXGhaRg epa ment
include- bargain sales, in which the landowner donates part of the land,- and
land exchanges, when a municipality and landowner trade land and the
landowner does not pay taxes on the transfer for ^t" prep Ft„ tax_fFe
The expense of outright purchase can be out of the reach of city resources.
However. Tthe Scenic and Natural Areas Grant Program, administered by the
. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, provides local governments with
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 37489
DRAFT 1028/98
matching funds to acquire open space. Other funding sources include
f corporations, foundations, and private individuals.
A dedicated fund can also be established to finance open space acquisition.
Funds in a special account are designated ithiS Gase-for open space and are
separate from other funds in the operating budget. Funds for this account can
be generated through increasing property taxes, grants, or fees associated with
development ordinances, e.g., in new development deals, developers paying
the local government with cash instead of dedicating land for open space.
Other taxing mechanisms used to create revenue are real-estate transfer taxes
or dedicated sales taxes to fuRd open spaGe . Local governments
can also issue certificates of participation to fund open space or use. RGtheF
general funds. This expeRdit Fe we Ff -
O ssiee(G).
•
Another funding mechanism, a lease-purchase arrangement, is described in
"Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital Community Asset ."7 The handbook provides
a-n#he example,- of a county board not wanting to use a referendum to raise
money for acquisition, but the board cannot legally obligate future boards with
debt.
An acquisition using general funds may in some cases be structured as a
lease-purchase, a financing arrangement which does not require voter
approval. For example, Washington County has entered into a lease-
purchase agreement to acquire a 570 acre parcel of land in the St. Croix
Valley for a regional park....According to the agreement, the county
would first acquire a 208 acre parcel outright for $1,128,158. The
remaining 371 acres would be subject to a lease-purchase agreement.
An initial lease payment of $137,772 was made, to be followed by ten
annual lease payments of $500,000, after which the county would take
ownership of the property. The arrangement honors state law, in that it
does not legally obligate a future board. If it wished, a future board could
break the lease agreement, although doing so would be to forfeit any
monies paid out in lease payments to that point. (Altmann 1997, page
64)
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 3848#
DRAFT 102898
In this example the county is not buying the land for a price that reflects the
• land's highest and best use. Fortunately, the sellers were willing to enter into
the agreement because they wanted the property to remain open space.
Another open space acquisition funding mechanism is for local governments to
issue bonds. In other municipalities 43bond debt has been paid with general
funds, property tax increases, fees for open space use, and a combination of
these. "Revenue bonds" are secured by earnings from a government
enterprise, e.g., municipal water. Revenue bonds are not commonly used for
open space acquisition because the revenue generated from open space, e.g.,
user fees, is typically insufficient. "Revenue Anticipation Bonds" have been
used if open space is under immediate threat of development (Allmann 1997).
TheseThis kind of bonde isa-re secured by funding that is not currently I
accessible but is anticipated. General obligation (GO) bonds are frequently
used to fund open space acquisition. GO bonds are approved by voters and
• are typically paid with property tax increases or general funds.
GO bonds must be approved by voters in a referendum. The Trust for Public
Land has outlined the financial, administrative, and educational activities that
are essential forts a successful bond referendum. The process entails nine
factors: a committee to administer the process, fundraising for research and
polling, research and polling, measure development, endorsements, media,
direct mail, and other voter contact (Appendix Results of open space
referenda in Twin Cities Metro Area communities are listed in Table. Each
community's experience has been unique.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 3943
DRAFT 10/228/98
Table . Open Space Referenda in the Twin Cities Metro Area.
• Community Year Referenda Outcome
Maplewood 1993 Approved $5,000,000 bond
Eden Prairie 1994 Approved $1,950,000 bond
Plymouth 1995 Approved $3,200,000 bond
Eagan 1996 Rejected $3,800,000 bond
Woodbury 1997 Approved $5,000,000 bond
Woodbury
Some referenda begin at the grassroots level. For instance, Woodbury's open
space referendum was initiated by neighbors who were upset by development
proposed for their community. The city established an Open Space Committee
and hired consultants to do a detailed biological inventory of the city. The
committee used the inventory to identify and rank important open space parcels.
The city then surveyed residents to find out specifically if and how much
residents would pay for open space acquisition. Woodbury's referendum
. committee did mailings, posted signs, and had articles in local papers to inform
the public about the referendum.
Maplewood
Residents petitioned the city of Maplewood to buy a parcel for open space when
the owner offered to sell it to the city. Residents were concerned that it would
eventually be sold for development. At the same time, the city was petitioned by
another group of residents for a similar reason. The mayor formed a committee
of twelve citizens to research the remaining open space in Maplewood.
Volunteers helped the committee with community meetings and passing out
flyers to inform residents of the open space referendum. The referendum
passed by 54%. Maplewood residents will pay $24 per year for 20 years to pay
for open space acquisition in their community.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 40494
DRAFT 10/28/98
Eagan
• Eagan's Open Space Taskforce recommended that a special election be held
for a referendum before regular elections. Its FeasGR was that if theFe The
rationale was that if only one issue was on the ballot the referendum would
attract more public interest. The cQty cGouncil did not VdiSGarded the
recommendation because it would have cost approximately $30,000.
Sixty-eight percent of Eagan voters rejected they-R open space bond
referendum. In a St. Paul Pioneer Press article, Tom Egan, Eagan Mayor,
thought that the measure failed because the acquisition program objectives
were not clearly communicated. In the article the Mayor was quoted as saying:
It appears the voters want us to be more precise rather than to make a
selection out of 20 [parcels]. We have to decide if the price was too high.
And it may have been that people were concerned whether there would
be a future referendum to develop these sites once we acquire them.
Maybe it will be better to put the whole package on the table in one bond
referendum.
. For taxpayers, the referendum would have meant additional property taxes of
$17 per year for 15 years on a $120,000 home.
Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie's open space referendum was initiated by the Eden Prairie Land
Trust and the city's Parks Department when a proposed development was
approved by the council on a parcel with high quality Big Woods. Citizens
petitioned the city council to stop the 40-acre maple-basswood forest from being
developed. In response, a 13 member Natural Resource Study Committee,
appointed by the City Council, inventoried and mapped the remaining parcels
with development potential in the city. Eden Prairie hired a consulting firm to
evaluate and rank the rarity of the natural communities on the most important
sites.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 4143
DRAFT 1028/98
Before the referendum, the city secured options on more parcels it knew it could
• buy, so that if the referendum was successful owners of identified priority
parcels could not raise their prices. The referendum passed by 83%. After the
referendum, the city triggered the options and within three months the city
owned the property. Eden Prairie also used grant money to acquired a large
parcel with high quality natural areas.
Plymouth
The City of Plymouth also studied its remaining open space parcels before
going to referendum. Its open space referendum was passed by 85%, 11 % of
registered voters voting. The funds were used to purchase maple-basswood
forests, cattail marches, and tamarack swamps. Taxes in Plymouth did not
increase because the bond issued replaced a previously issued bond.
Subsequently, tax payers gave up a property tax reduction of $8.31 on a house
valued at $150,000 (Star Tribune, May 24, 1995). Due to revenue generated
. by the referendum, construction of previously planned hiking and biking trails
began five years earlier than had been planned.
Edina
The City of Edina passed a bond referendum for parks improvement. It was a
two year process. The Parks Director held 20-30 neighborhood meetings over
a 2-3 month period. The city sent neighborhood associations and groups
meeting announcements, and many people came to the meetings. At the
meetings, residents listed what the parks needed. City staff then developed a
list of projects to undertake. The referendum was held in May, not November.
Fiscal Analysis
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 424W
DRAFT 10/28/98
Discussion
•
. Private nonprofit
organizations have been successfully used as negotiators and to carry44g out
transactions for local governments. They eye also helpful-fog-advisee
municipalities on referenda, landowner contact, and negotiations. Private
organizations are a good alternative if landowners are willing to sell or donate
their land but do not want to deal with a governmental agency.
Land acquisition should be a part of a well thought out long-term land
protection program, i.e., the Open Space Plan. If land is acquired in an
unplanned manner there may be future political and fiscal difficulty with plan
implementation. The vision and objectives of the plan should be clearly
• defined, and citizens should be a part of identifying the resources that are
valued in the community. One main-point to be communication to the public
about a land acquisition program is that the program is voluntary. Another
important message is the specific how's, when's, where's, and why's of the
acquisition pro-gram.
am.
Conflicts with landowners near city-owned open space should be prevented by
informing residents of ownershiip.
Funding
There are many options for funding acquisition and compensating willing
landowners, and Shorewood can learn from the experiences of other cities.
Woodbury's experience illustrates the importance of grassroots support and
polling citizens before holding a referendum. The survey results indicated that
• Woodbury residents were in favor of the referendum 3:1, and the measure
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 43483
DRAFT 1028/98
personal communication).
passed by a 3:1 margin (Bob Klat, City of Woodbury
• Eden Prairie's experience also points to the importance of grassroots support
and community participation in the process. Securing options before a
referendum may be a good strategy for avoiding soaring land prices. The
significance of informing the public and the timing of the referendum is shown
with the success of Edina's referendum. The support and ultimate success of
the open space referendum in Maplewood was primarily due to committed
citizens (Bruce Anderson, City of Maplewood Parks Director). Maplewood's
experience also illustrates the positive effects of community involvement and
support.
Lessons should be learned from Eagan's experience. While holding a special
election is expensive it may be advantageous in getting citizens' attention.
Clearly getting the message out is also important. Voters should know the
what's, why's, how's, and when's of thea proposed land acquisition program. In
the case the Ceity of Eagan, open space parcels were not prioritized and the
• vision of the acquisition program was not well defined or communicated to
citizens.
Eden Prairie decided not to ask for more than $2,000,000 in a referendum
I because they were uncertain of community support for men space acquisition.
Bob Lambert, Eden Prairie Parks Director, indicated that, with hindsight, the city
should have proposed a measure higher than $2,000,000. He also
recommended consulting with the Trust for Public Land (TPL) for advise on the
referendum process_However, he does not recommend acquiring land
through the TPL. This is because TPL buys the land at a bargain price, holds
on to it until the local government has the funds for acquisition, then sells it to
the local government at fair market value. 4~, Mr. Lambert pointed out
that; TPL would be helpful if a city were to use general funds for open space
acquisition, then the city could pay TPL for the land over a number of years.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 4448
DRAFT 1028/98
• Summary GGR;rAeRts GR MeatiRe QbeG+iio -
~ orn~ ~ ~ v ~aE~ v.s
Outright acquisition allows the City to determine the current and future
management of open space. However, acquiring land does not mean it is
permanently protected. Land is only protected in perpetuity if it is protected
legally.
Recommendations
• Public education and promotion is needed to convey the central points of the
program to potential donors and sellers. The points . the pr.Ggram is
• Open space parcels should be prioritized by citizens.
• City owned open space should have signage indicating ownership to avoid
conflicts with landowners.
• • Send letters every 5 years to landowners near city::-owned open space to
remind them of ownership.
• Apply for a Scenic and Natural Areas Grant for matching funds for
acquisition.
• Apply fora Conservation Partners Grant 6hould-bepuF-for funding
ecological restoration projects on city-owned open space.
• As land is tax forfeited., the City should, ° matteF of Peli^Y, consider it for
purchase.
• The City should develop a positive working relationship with landowners
who are considering selling their land to be certain that the best payment
method, for both parties, is chosen.
• Land acquisition would be a good land protection option afteMative-if
residents do not want the City to spend public funds for open space
protection that does not require public access, ;I --;-_-.PVa easeMeRt
• The City should form partnerships with non-profit private land conservation
organizations, e.g., The Minnesota Land Trust aA -or tThe Nature
Conservancy, to accommodate landowners who-w9u# prefer to negotiate
with a non-profit private organization.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 45484
DRAFT 1028,98
program °heul`'1 be nleaF!y defiRed
N
• The Open Space Plan should identify funding
sources, staffing responsibilities, and long-term land management for an
acquisition program.
• If a referendum is required, an educational campaign +swould be -necessary
to make se44at-voters ,a*e -Ne"aware of the issues -i fed. Voters should
have a clear understanding that their taxes might go up and that not every
open space parcel in every neighborhood will be purchased.
• A combination of funding mechanisms may be the best solution to financing
issues.
•
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 4644
DRAFT 1028/98
• 3.5 Regulatory Controls
Regulatory controls were not researched as a protection tool because then are
not appropriate in Shorewood. Regulatory controls are generally city
ordinances that restrict land use in specified areas. Some examples of these
restrictions are performance zoning, urban growth boundaries, preservation
overlay zones, conservation districts o4:and enforcement of specific best
management practices. Regulatory controls were also not studied because of
its associated `takings issue' and the City's respect for landowner rights.
Conservation over-lay zoning, such as Shorewood's Shoreland zoning, is a
regulatory tool municipalities have used to preserve a city's natural or historic
character. The Committee did not consider conservation zoning because
almost 90% of Shorewood has been developed and the remaining land with
development potential is scattered across the City.
• In some communities, subdivision zoning requires that large blocks of land are
set aside for permanent open space. The set aside land is sometimes owned
by homeowners associations, land trusts, or local government. Cluster
development is not addressed in this report because the City Council has
already discussed this option.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 4743
DRAFT 1028/98
• 3.6 Choosing a conservation method
The City must select and implement land protection tools consistently. If
protection tools are applied haphazardly the City's motives will be questioned.
However, flexibility in the City's open space protection policies will make it
easier to choose appropriate options. There are many factors to consider when
deciding which conservation option or combination of options to use. To do so,
the City must ask the following questions:
• What are the property's conservation values?
• What use of the property is most compatible with its conservation values?
• How does the community wish to see the property used?
• What options is the landowner willing to consider?
• What type of stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring responsibilities
is the City willing to accept?
• How much money is available for the property's protection?
. • Can the land be protected in perpetuity?
(Land Trust Alliance, 1998)
A balance must be struck among all of these considerations. The community's
vision of open space should help to answer these questions, see Section 4.
The City should be able to refer to the Open Space Plan as a document that
reflects the community's values and its vision and goals for open space in
Shorewood. For a simplified guide of conservation options see Appendix ,
Conservation Tools and Strategies; in this table landowner goals are generic
for the sake of illustration.
The property must be examined to ensure that an appropriate transaction can
be chosen. A site inspection will allow one to see if the property meets the
City's criteria for protection and any potential liabilities or management
problems. In the case of a potential acquisition, the City should look for any
hazardous or toxic materials on the property. Property boundaries should be
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 4843
DRAFT 1028/98
recorded and described with legal land descriptions. If there are problems or
• potential problems on the site, the City should correct the problem, or before it
takes action the City should decide if protecting the open space is worthwhile
despite the problem.
The City also should make another decision for each parcel. Legal land
protection is an important first step to protecting the natural environmental
character of Shorewood. However, to assure that open space remains natural,
the City should assess the restoration potential of acquired sites. If there is
reasonable restoration potential, the City should utilize state financial and
technical assistance to restore the site's natural community(s).
•
co
co
N
• O
d
d C
a
c
E E
E v
0 ¢
d
~ o
Z
E m (n c m
0
.r :o v a ~ ~ m a
c c c
ccc d-o m E3
to 0 a) CD C) 0 r_
d
> mC
Qcv~ o~ 0
tm CM 0 E CT
E r a m m a co
Q m C m Qi > c> m
_m cY `-n in m > > 3 3 one
CC > U)
vl c ~ 0 a, E
m y aci am mO E
0 m y cOi c c (D ax) E> c m
a; a m 16 E o m m m E co 'Fn E~ 'm T
ni, m x v a umi •E d c c m c m d c m c -
N U aw E o U U cmn~ m cn~ a O•`_-°
C `c m m c CD 0
. y 0 m c x > a > n c m
m m c d m m m to C O Y L
0 n d m W E ` d 0 , d O L.. O a y C
m •p F m m d O (C m 07 m W m co m m O m U p U a
C d 3 C d m N> N N j N C E m m C E d d a n z N co
C O co w m C 3 7 m m C p O W p U y C d > m
c a o m co y a
CD m m c c a~ c m c Q m 2 aA~ a> coo
o c a° c a n o
i > "p m «.a E Co c E 3 m m$ o m aci v om c a a~ m •W
C c o d 0 O O m m y m d y (A L
u Q `o o > m a c m y E *O c > c o 3 m Co 0 3 m c W aai E n 0 E
O o n cJ cOi o m cw aai m-0 2~ m~ ~0 ~ o a - mo
C m 0. n 0 O - cti m io 4 n m a)
U a m a t r m _o m n ai m m e m x m e m x n a m
O m d 1 i Co N x V1 c C O d .d. d C m L C m L m
" E m m d m° m m c d m c da ° m c :d y .0 m y m m 3 p m g
0 m e c x 0 m e rn c E E x 2 a x a a'8 F E' 0« x o c
U a COO w o o m E ao .p S w a v H a cco v v~ Fo- tco rn a Q 3 H n v
o
L mW W « T
m
W .o cc CD c c y c n
y CU O
C 'C L O. O in m y 0 m a U d c> a
m m m
p a 0 m N 0 d = 0 co o W
c aYm°'y t c 3m caE Y
m ~o c a c .a o 0 0 m m m
3: o -J
m o co d_ cc cM E
> d m m
CL m L m «Q c d m N= N J T m
_ c o
w " .c m Q E o' c c o m o m m c» co
w a C p N d W fo o> n 0 o m m
m m n
U C m C > j Y 7> n CO 8 W 3
° E °o
L o m m 0 m m m a-x
U M d `o£ m y U c U~ U E ma CUwo °oU wU
N p C
y n c U m m
d m E m
W E2 E c m 0 m o
aUi c c m > > T _N
3 w m r m m m o
• _ 0 d m n
c m o F- > o cc U 0 m
n is s m a U a d o m
c
d E m •c m c c c m s o rn
IL ti U ¢ ti d Q m m w O 0 m
a
co
OD
N
• C
~ m
m c .
C
E 0
U
m
Q Q
Z
U V7 ca
m m
to
N
N m
:3 co
a U L y N U C m
co E
W vl m m C. o 'a •a C
41
a) a 2 CO
cm .2
CD m co ow E co a (1)it, E
TC L E = p 0
C
m O
O
m> c'o o r m t m
of o Tn L y co f/1 m _m E m
fA O C. m -p j° ccaa c'' y T C
d la x N E c O
C1 m m 7 a 0 m f6 0° A di C m
(D .2
U V7 U
N >
A > L C U 7 N N ; y y m •p m'
i m) m. m m ow U E N m O pp O cc °
(n Q U a1 ow Z t6 a w a J a
C c m
• O L m C N o
O _
N D
y 3 7 ai c
p m
a7
O L U N cca •w Co CD a) M U x d
C a y m o m v rn
m m a 3: m
y o a x m y o m
> W is I' C '7 _T C T V r c
d v mo o ca my
U) E 'v_, 5 a m m
a m Qy m
a c y
m Q a c o 0
p E cmi c c °
o n o m co E Q m c cc
y- ._a)
ymy o m
oacc n
3 0 a m c
L_ _Tpa c
o aQ o w a; c co
Q o m U E LL 3 U n= v
m y N
w ~ m ns
E r is o ° T ~pQ
w .0 m m m m a O O O O t6 c
c> E C t co UtN- T m a c a U O °
7 m p of N a U r i 0 0 cc N
C p m U L a CO m 0 'cc T C C- co
t o C p = to o
co T tq m ° m co d° L m m
° r
cm aTi e Oa 2 a w m C E ca
C 'O m la C T co a m p m m C m
x C.)
w E o O m m N •C N C m to 0 O L y L ca
a n o D a N y v c 3
o Q m a° M `0 c x o `m m m 0 ca 0 T
y0 N° m m ~ 9= J o p U Nm
d y y U to in O O r T m cm
c = cc n a d Q a' cL paa`) cu
U f m U) m m
L cnn J
w 3 a N cc
E c y
d! m O C N
c E to
~
O
>
r c m
0 0)
m j p O o
api o °
a y
aa) E m
0 E co a)
g
w (D 0 ?1 c
o
C O N M .m y
m m
• _ m
.V y m a Q ~ r d m d
16 4)
c 7 C U m a m •O C C
IL o is E n z ° L m U D
m za cDD cna 01 a
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 48
DRAFT 10/30/98
4 Implementation: Action Plan and Timeline
This section recommends a process to follow to protect open space in
Shorewood. The previous sections established a base of information from
which the process can be developed. The process is a planning process that
will develop the Open Space Plan. This report represents the beginning of that
process, and the report should be refined to ultimately become Shorewood's
Open Space Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should eventually be amended to
be consistent with the vision, goals, and objectives of the Open Space Plan.
The Land Conservation Committee (LCC) strongly recommends that citizens
have opportunities to contribute meaningful input in the planning and
implementation of the Open Space Plan.
In this section, the LCC suggests a number of steps and a timetable to further
develop the Open Space Plan. A visioning session will be necessary to ensure
• that the community's open space values are represented in the Plan. A working
group will be established which may consist of Planning and Park
Commissioners and citizens. Open space parcels in Shorewood will be
prioritized for protection. The planning process also requires identifying funding
sources for open space protection
Section 4 also outlines steps to be taken to implement the Plan.
Implementation includes promoting the Plan, executing protection tools,
evaluating the Plan, and educating officials and residents about Shorewood's
natural resources and the land protection options available to local
governments and private individuals.
The planning process and Open Space Plan are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. This is clearly illustrated by the Natural Resource
Objective "[w]here feasible, preservation of natural open space areas shall be
• achieved through conservation easements, acquisition, or development
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 49
DRAFT 10/30/98
regulation" (NR-3). Also, one of the Natural Resource Policies is that
"[c]onservation easements and similar methods of preserving open space shall
be pursued to ensure that such areas remain in open space indefinitely" (NR-8).
Language for open space protection has also been proposed for the Land Use
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, see Appendix .
Most likely, the Open Space Plan will include some of the land protection
options previously described in this report, and the protection options will be in
the form of programs. For example, these programs might include a purchase
of development rights program, land registry program, and land and
conservation easement acquisition program. The programs differ in the amount
of administration that is required for implementation. On a relative scale, easily
administered programs are the registry program and the land and easement
donation program (acquiring title and easement donations). The program that
is moderately difficult to administer is the special assessment for open space
acquisition program. Difficult to administer programs are the purchase of
• development rights program and the land and conservation easement
acquisition (via purchase) program.
An action plan is outlined below. Each step is described in subsequent
sections.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 50
DRAFT 10/30/98
i Action Plan
Planning Process
Step 1 - Approve Land Conservation Committee Report and Commit to
Planning Process
Step 2 - Determine Plan Administration
Step 3 - Develop Community Vision for Open Space and Develop Criteria
for Prioritizing Parcels
Step 4 - Create Working Group)
Step 5 - Identify Priority Open Space Parcels
Step 6 - Develop a Land Protection Strategy
Step 7 - Finalize Open Space Plan
Plan Implementation
Step 8 - Promote Plan and Educate Residents about Land Protection
Options
Step 9 - Implement Land Conservation Options
Step 10 - Evaluate Plan Effectiveness
Step 11 - Continue Long-term Programs
Suggestions
• Evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken during the planning process, and
if things are not progressing well then adapt the action plan.
• Staff and other facilitators should continually ask the citizens participating in
the process if they think things are on track.
• Keep decision makers in the loop throughout the entire planning process.
• Establish a common vision of open space and build support for the Open
Space Plan in the community.
• • The community's vision for open space should be keep in mind during plan
development and implementation.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 51
DRAFT 10/30/98
4.1 Planning Process
i
The first seven steps refine the Open Space Plan so it can be implemented.
Step 1 - Approve Report and Commit to Planning Process
The first step in the planning process is to approve the LCC's report and its
recommendations. The City's commitment to the planning process is needed to
further develop the Plan. This commitment may be in the form of a written
pledge to carry out the planning process.
Step 2 - Determine Plan Administration
There are many ways the Open Space Plan can be administered. In this report,
the future administering body will be referred to as a `working group.' The City
may decide that more than one working group is needed and/or that one
working group will be permanent and another will be temporary.
Once the Open Space Plan is finalized, the ease of administering the Plan will
depend on the land conservation options that the City decides to implement.
The land protection programs, e.g., land registry or purchase of development
rights program, will be administered by City staff and the working group. Each
option will have a different set of tasks required for implementation.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 52
DRAFT 10/30/98
Easily administered
Land registry and title and conservation easement donations.
Tasks required on a consistent and on-going basis:
• Promotion - publicize programs, organize public ceremonies/events,
develop and produce brochures
• Education - organize public meetings, develop and produce brochures,
write articles for newsletter and local newspapers, consult one-on-one
with interested landowners
• Other - develop plaque or other means of recognition
• Develop criteria for accepting land and easement donations
Moderately difficult to administer
Special assessment for residents' open space acquisition program
Tasks required as needed, except developing criteria:
• Develop criteria for program eligibility
• • Approve applications for program
• Negotiate assessment terms with petitioners
• Negotiate easement terms with petitioners
• Estimate and implement assessment
• Secure funding
i
Difficult to administer
i
Purchase of development rights program and land and conservation easement
acquisition program.
Tasks required intensively at first and then as needed:
• Develop criteria for site selection
• Rank parcels
• Review program applications and select eligible parcels for programs
• Contact owners of high priority parcels
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 53
DRAFT 10/30/98
• Negotiate acquisition and easement terms
• Monitor and enforce easement terms
• Secure funding
• Manage and maintain acquired open space
• Promotion - publicize program and develop and produce brochures
• Education - organize public meetings, develop and produce brochures,
write articles for newsletter and local newspapers, consult one-on-one
with interested landowners
The framework of the Plan's administration will be one of the first steps to take in
the planning process. The administering body's purpose, tasks, makeup and
procedures will be ultimately determined by the City Council with input from the
Park and Planning Commissions.
The citizen members of the working group may be selected from the people
who attend the visioning session, see Step 3. The working group will educate
residents about land protection options on an on-going basis. The group will
also collect data that is necessary for prioritizing open space parcels. Once the
protection options have been selected, the working group will formulate a
protection strategy. This strategy will describe how parcels will be protected
and address relevant funding and legal issues. The working group will also
finalize the Open Space Plan, so it can be added to the Comprehensive Plan.
During Plan implementation, the working group will promote the Open Space
Plan and carry out the protection options. On a regular basis, the group will
evaluate the Open Space Plan's effectiveness based on how and if the Plan's
goals and objectives are met. If the group is established as a permanent body,
the working group will manage the long-term programs. Otherwise, the Council
will decide how the long-term programs will be administered.
One option for administering the planning process and eventually the Plan is for
Park and Planning Commissioners to participate in a working group dedicated
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 54
D R A FT 10/30/98
to researching and making recommendations about open space protection.
Alternately, the City could establish an expanded LCC consisting of one
member from each commission and additional citizens. Another option is for
the Park Commission to become the Park and Open Space Commission and
administer the Open Space Plan. In this situation, a temporary citizen
committee could be involved in the planning process. Additionally, the current
LCC could continue to develop and implement a land protection strategy and a
separate committee, made up of commissioner and citizens, would develop the
community's vision for open space and create a list of criteria for prioritizing
open space parcels.
The City Council and the Park and Planning Commissions have experience
with defining the roles of government officials, so the LCC suggests that they
recommend and Commissions' roles in administering the Open Space Plan.
As illustrated above, citizens can be involved in planning and implementation in
i a number of ways. Most importantly, citizens can identify the community's
values. See Steps 3 and 4 for details.
Recommendations
• The role of the Planning and Park Commissions should be determined by
the Commissions and the City Council.
• The working group(s) should have citizen representation.
l
}
• Citizens should have meaningful input:
1. When the community develops a vision of open space in Shorewood
2. When criteria for selecting and ranking open space parcels is developed
and when open space parcels are prioritized
3. In budgeting for acquisition of development rights or purchase of property
• If a number of citizens are interested in participating, a simple volunteer
information sheet should be developed to find out what people like to do and
what skills they have to offer.
• People with a broad range of interests and from all precincts should be
encouraged to actively participate in the process.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 55
DRAFT 10/30/98
• Involve people of various ages, ethnicities, classes, and abilities to
participate.
Establishing a nonprofit land conservation organization
The City Council asked the LCC to investigate the possibilities of 1.) assisting a
nonprofit land conservation group to become established or 2.) using an
existing nonprofit organization to be responsible for acquisition, control, and
maintenance of land set-aside for open space. Private land conservation
organizations usually have focused protection goals, e.g., a watershed or a
natural community. Establishing a new nonprofit land conservation
organization (LCO) would entail extensive paperwork, and running an LCO
takes much time and energy. An LCO requires a board of directors, needs the
help of volunteers, and may require a staff. Using an existing nonprofit
organization for land conservation would require a partnership or other working
relationship between the City and an LCO.
Board members are legally responsible for the LCO and should be active in the
organization. The board of directors meets regularly to perform its
responsibilities. Ideally, the board's membership reflects the broad interests of
the community. As public charities, LCOs are legally responsible for the gifts
and funds they receive from the public. The public can legally challenge an
LCO on its financial dealings. The Land Trust Alliance recommends that even
small land trusts keep careful records, develop annual budgets and financial
reports. It is likely that LCOs will be audited if they spend more than a couple of
thousand dollars in a year (Land Trust Alliance 1998). Again, the board of
directors is responsible for the organizations financial management. LCOs
might also require liability and property insurance.
Maintaining nonprofit and tax-exempt status requires tedious paperwork. This
includes preparing and filing articles of incorporation and bylaws. Tax-exempt
status must also be filed for with federal and state governments, and tax-exempt
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 56
DRAFT 10/30/98
status must be retained over time. LCOs must make certain that they meet IRS
requirements for a public charity. All of these procedures should be done by an
attorney experienced with nonprofits. LCOs have additional responsibilities
such as preparing annual budget reports, filing state registration with the
attorney general, filing federal 990 tax returns, and complying with state
charitable solicitation laws.
LCOs commit to monitoring easements on a regular basis in perpetuity. They
would lose credibility in the community if easement terms are broken and no
action is taken. Long-term funding for easement monitoring and enforcement
must be secured. Also, LCOs must have an agreement with another
organization to take over their responsibilities in the event that they cannot
continue to monitor their easement agreements. LCOs must also manage the
land that they control. They must make certain that the land is safe, i.e., there
are no physical hazards to people, and that its natural resources are protected.
The amount of time and resources required to establish such an organization is
tremendous relative to the amount of land there is to protect in Shorewood. A
land conservation organization should be a stable organization, able to
manage land, and enforce easement terms. The City is a more secure
organization than a small volunteer-based land conservation organization for
which future community support is uncertain.
The City can partner with a private land conservation organization. LCOs may
be better equipped to protect natural resources than the City could because
they have a better understanding of natural areas and the laws and regulations
of conservation tools. If the City cannot afford the cost of acquiring a parcel or
purchasing an easement, a private organization may be able to quickly secure
the resources to do so. A private organization may also be interested in a land
exchange to raise money to protect property that has conservation value. If a
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 57
DRAFT 10/30/98
partnership were established, the City would be able to refer landowners to the
LCO if they do not wish to deal with the City.
Establishing a partnership with an existing LCO might lessen the City's
management burden, but the City would still have some responsibilities. City
staff might be required to contact landowners. If the City worked with an LCO, it
may not have to dedicate staff time maintaining property and monitoring and
enforcing easements.
Establishing a new nonprofit land conservation organization is not a desirable
option because of the expense and administration involved. The tremendous
amount of paperwork and the uncertainty of volunteer labor also makes this a
weak alternative. Partnering with an existing land conservation organization
would be less work for the City and would achieve the same conservation
goals. If needed, the City could work with more than one LCO. If a protected
parcel required active management the City could work with The Nature
Conservancy, or if the land was on the market and the City did not have cash on
hand for acquisition it could work with the Minnesota Land Trust or the Trust for
Public Land.
Recommendations
• If an important natural resource is identified and requires active
management, the City should incorporate natural resource professionals in
the planning and implementation process.
• The City should not establish a new nonprofit land conservation
organization for protecting land in Shorewood.
• The City should partner with an existing land conservation organization if the
following circumstances arise: a quick sale, a parcel that requires intensive
management, and landowners that do not want to deal with the City.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 58
DRAFT 10/30/98
Step 3 - Develop Community Vision for Open Space and Develop
• Criteria for Prioritizing Parcels
Community vision for open space
Because the LCC only has three Shorewood citizens, the community's role is
essentially to verify that the LCC's recommendations are consistent with the
community's values. It is critical to the process that there is public involvement
early on in the plan to identify community values. The Open Space Plan's goals
and objectives should reflect the community's vision of land protection. For the
plan to be effective, the values behind why open space is important to the
community must not only be identified but must also be agreed upon by citizens.
The LCC recognizes that community involvement and self-evaluation during the
process will make the process run smoothly.
Local support and awareness of the Open Space Plan is important to the
success of the planning process and Plan implementation. When citizens
volunteer and get involved they learn about land conservation. Involved
citizens will spread the word about the City's land conservation efforts. It is
essential to incorporate the ideas of citizens into the Open Space Plan because
the protection options are voluntary. If Shorewood residents' concerns are not
addressed, the plan will fail because of a lack of participation. See Appendix
for ways to facilitate community involvement in the planning process.
Shorewood's Park and Trail Planning Process took a grass-roots approach in
its planning process. A consultant was hired to facilitate citizen input. Input was
in the form of a community visioning session, a phone survey, and the
appointment of a Citizen Review Group. These activities were coordinated by
the Park Commission. This way of getting citizen input seemed to successfully
identify the communities' values and the issues that are important to
Shorewood residents.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 59
DRAFT 10/30/98
The LCC suggests a vision, goal, and objectives for the Open Space Plan. The
vision, goal, and objectives may be modified, added to, or completely rewritten
as seen fit by City officials and Shorewood residents that participate in the
visioning session. The suggested vision, goal, and objectives can be used as a
starting point for the visioning session. After being presented with the vision,
goal, and objectives, citizens could respond with approval, disapproval, or
neutrality.
Possible Vision for the Open Space Plan
It is important that we maintain the unique natural environment of Shorewood
for future generations. Shorewood will remain an attractive community in which
to live and recreate through an organized effort that encourages setting aside
open space.
Possible Goal for the Open Space Plan
The City of Shorewood is more than 90% developed, and there is growing
pressure to build on the remaining undeveloped land. In order to balance this
economic pressure with the desire to protect open space, the City of
Shorewood will work with citizens and nonprofit land conservation
organizations to protect open space in conjunction with the City's existing
wetland and shoreland ordinances. The Open Space Plan will be implemented
in a way that respects landowner rights.
Possible Objectives for the Open Space Plan
• Educate City Council members and Shorewood residents about land
protection options with community meetings, newsletter articles, and
other communication mechanisms.
• Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include: a.) priority sites ranked with
input from citizens; b.) measurable objectives, such as half of the land
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 60
DRAFT 10/30/98
protected will be upland forest; and, c.) any other issues identified in the
Open Space Plan.
• Permanently protect one hundred acres of natural open space in
Shorewood by 2001 (approximately one third of the undeveloped land in
Shorewood).
Criteria for prioritizing parcels
Site selection should be given careful consideration to avoid protecting areas
that are not compatible with the objectives of the Open Space Plan. If the City
protects parcels that do not seem to have conservation value as defined by the
community, the public may perceive that the City does not care about public
interests or values. In this situation, the City will be criticized and the Open
Space Plan's credibility will be questioned. Ultimately, community support for
the Plan would decline and use of the protection tools would also decline, in
part because they are voluntary. So, defining the criteria to be used to rank and
eventually select open space parcels that will be protected should be carefully
• considered.
In site selection, there are more factors to consider than just a site's
conservation value. The City of Maplewood put its criteria for rating open space
into a number of categories:
• Location
• Linear corridor/linkage
• Number of residences in immediate area
• Esthetic value
• Ecological factors
• Unique natural resource
• Public action necessary
• Harmony with Comprehensive Plan
• Special opportunities
• 0 Public access
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 61
DRAFT 10/30/98
• Multiple open space use
• Suitability of trails
• Maintenance
• Community support
Maplewood developed a rating worksheet to be completed for each parcel
considered. Each criteria, e.g., serves a high density neighborhood, was
assigned a number of possible points to weight the importance of each criteria.
In Shorewood, a list of criteria can be compiled from scratch. In this case,
residents should answer the question "what do I want to know about this
property to help me decide if I think it is worth protecting?" Or, as with the
method to develop the vision, goals, and objectives, citizens can respond to a
proposed list of criteria. Citizens could react to the list and then approve or
disapprove each criterion as well as add their own ideas. See Appendix for a
suggested list of selection criteria.
•
The LCC recommends that parcel size be used to initially shorten the list of 144
parcels. Vacant lots that are less than 1 acre and occupied lots that are less
than 5 acres could be removed from the list to shorten it. If an important
resource is known to be on a lot, this first cut should not be applied.
In summary, a public meeting should be held to create a community vision for
open space and develop criteria to rank open space parcels. The City should
invite the entire community by advertising the meeting in local media. Personal
invitations should be sent to people in the community who are known to be
interested in open space issues.
The meeting should begin by presenting an overview of land protection options
and, the open space in Shorewood. The first question that citizens must answer
is: what should be the role of open space in Shorewood? Specifically, people
• will discuss when, where and how open space should be protected? The
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 62
DRAFT 10/30/98
second question to answer is: what factors are important to consider when
deciding which open space parcels will be protected? A list of criteria should
be developed and each factor should be ranked in terms of its relative
importance to other criteria. The meeting should not be longer than three hours.
Recommendations
• Hold a public meeting to develop a community vision of open space and
to develop and rank a list of criteria for prioritizing open space parcels.
• Invite the general public through publicity.
• Send invitations to people who have an interest in open space issues.
Step 4 - Create Working Group(s)
The City Council will create a working group(s). If the group is permanent it will
be established by ordinance and if it is temporary by resolution. Citizen
participants will be selected from the people who attend the visioning session.
The working group will develop a timeline for its activities.
A number of cities in the region have already developed and implemented land
protection plans. The administration of these programs varies among the cities,
but there are some commonalties. Open space plans are typically developed
by a group of people consisting of citizens and elected officials and sometimes
natural resource professionals. The group recommends action for decision
makers, e.g., City Council, to take. Below are some examples of working
groups in other communities.
The City of East Bethel formed an Open Space Taskforce that was made up of
city officials and natural resource professionals. The group investigated
purchasing open space in their community. The Taskforce established a
• Steering Committee of citizens to develop a natural resource plan. The Steering
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 63
DRAFT 10/30/98
Committee developed a vision and goals for the plan. The committee also
recommended addressing issues that were important to the community and
identified property to be protected. The committee suggested that the city
appoint an advisory board of some kind to implement their recommendations.
The City of Chanhassen's natural resource planning process for the Bluff Creek
Watershed involved two working groups. The first group was a Steering
Committee that had one city council member, nine residents, a planning
commissioner, and a parks and recreation commissioner. This committee also
included people from the University of Minnesota Horticulture Department, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the local watershed district board,
the local elementary school, a local business, a developer's firm, the local
school, and a nonprofit conservation organization. The Steering Committee
learned about natural history and local land use through presentations and field
tours. Then, the Committee developed a common vision for the watershed.
This vision was expressed in the best and worst outcomes for the area. Goals
• and objectives were drafted by city staff and consultants based on the list of best
and worst outcomes. The Steering Committee reviewed the draft, and actions
taken by the committee were decided by consensus.
The second working group in Chanhassen's planning process was a Technical
Committee that included the director of the Parks and Recreation Department,
the director of the Planning Department, and the city's water resources and
environmental resource coordinators. The Technical Committee also had
representatives from a nonprofit conservation organization, the University of
Minnesota's Landscape architecture Department, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Chanhassen
needed technical expertise to effectively protect the watershed, and city staff
consulted with the Technical Committee when drafting a natural resource plan.
The Steering Committee reviewed and amended the draft plan. The
Chanhassen City Council approved the document and the draft became a part
• of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Finally, staff began implementing the plan
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 64
DRAFT 10/30/98
• and elected officials started to use the natural resource plan in land use
decisions.
Another example of a land conservation program, on the state level, is the Ohio
Farmland Preservation Task Force. It was formed to research issues involved in
the balance of agricultural land and development. The task force brainstormed
to identify the issues involved and then formed subcommittees to research each
issue. Nine-hundred people attended public meetings throughout the state
during which citizens voiced their concerns about farmland and development.
The task force also received more than 350 letters from citizens with their
opinions on and recommendations for the issues discussed at the meetings.
The task force felt that this information from citizens was vital to developing
recommendations. Part of the task force toured other states that have open
space protection programs in place. The Ohio Farmland Preservation Task
Force recommended that a report, which describes the progress of land
. conservation programs, be prepared for decision makers on a biannual basis.
Closer to home, the City of Minnetonka formed an Open Space Task Force
which is made up of 7 citizens (representing each of the City's 4 wards), 2
Friends of Minnetonka Parks members, 2 City Council members, a Park board
member, a Planning Commissioner, a Community Resources Commissioner,
and a Senior Advisory Board member. The task force's purpose is to evaluate
and recommend a process for open space preservation. Specifically, its duties
are to:
• Establish goals to achieve open space preservation.
• Develop criteria for identifying and selecting parcels for current and
future preservation. Where appropriate, identify such parcels and
prioritize their acquisition.
• Develop alternatives for obtaining control over land, such as acquisition,
conservation easements, etc.
• Determine alternative methods for preservation of land controlled by the
. city for open space.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 65
DRAFT 10/30/98
• • Develop a timetable and level of expenditures for achieving open space
preservation goals.
• Present findings to the city council for review.
Minnetonka's task force is like an expanded version of Shorewood's LCC. The
task force has similar duties as the LCC but is a larger group representing more
interests. In Shorewood, tasks such as establishing goals, criteria for
protection, and prioritizing parcels to be protected should involve greater citizen
involvement than is currently represented on the LCC.
Recommendations
• A working group should be established in the form of a steering
committee, review board, or task force.
• The group should include citizens and Park and Planning
Commissioners.
• Citizens in the working group should be selected from the people who
attend the visioning session and, if possible, should represent all 4
• precincts.
• The working group should draft open space goals and objectives based
on the community vision for open space.
Step 5 - Identify Priority Open Space Parcels
The working group will use the list of criteria developed at the public meeting to
rank open space parcels for protection. It may be necessary during the
selection process to collect additional data about the parcels. The natural
features inventory, Section 2, will not provide information on the majority of
criteria in the suggested list (Appendix ) because the inventory did not include
most of these factors.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 66
DRAFT 10/30/98
. Step 6 - Develop a Land Protection Strategy
Once the goals and objectives of land conservation are established and priority
parcels are identified, protection options that are appropriate for each parcel
should be identified. Each land protection option will have different funding
needs and thus require different funding sources. The strategy will include
funding sources, a timeline, and an outline of tasks for the working group.
Step 7 - Finalize Open Space Plan
The Open Space Plan will be revised to include the Plan's administration, the
community's vision, goals, and objectives for open space; the criteria for
• prioritizing parcels; the identified priority parcels; and the land protection
options that will be employed to preserve the open space parcels. The final
Plan will be presented to the City Council for approval
4.2 Plan Implementation
The intensive short-term projects will be completed and the long-term projects
will be started.
Step 8 - Educate Residents about Land Protection Options and
Promote Plan
One of the working group's duties will be to promote the Open Space Plan and
• to educate residents about land protection options. Education can expand the
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 67
DRAFT 10/30/98
• significance of open space issues beyond the boundaries of the City limits and
inform people of the landscape-level conservation problems. Promotion will
build community support for the Plan. The working group might establish a
separate committee to be responsible for promotion and education.
The LCC has already started Step 8 by writing articles on land conservation
options for the City's newsletter. However, all citizens and decision makers
should have a comprehensive understanding of Shorewood's natural features
and the land protection options available to private landowners and local
governments. Educational activities should be aimed at elected officials,
citizens, and staff.
Information could be delivered through public meetings, public cable access
channels, the newsletter, other local media, homeowners association meetings,
or one-on-one contact with volunteers who are trained in land conservation.
Public meetings could have legal, conservation, and tax professionals as well
as trained volunteers to answer questions. As mentioned above, registry
programs are an effective way to educate landowners and other residents about
land conservation.
A brochure with land conservation contacts, e.g., the Minnesota Land Trust, and
a summary of land protection options is another effective method of getting the
message across. Most communication is non-verbal, so brochures and any
other printed material should convey an image of land conservation to convey
the values behind the program. However, talking to landowners one-on-one is
the most effective approach. This is especially true if landowners consider
educators and promoters as peers. (See Diehl and Barrett 1988 for more detail
on promotion. See Appendix for a guide for landowners for choosing land
protection options.)
The Cities of East Bethel and Chanhassen have successfully used education
• and promotion as a part of their open space protection efforts. Chanhassen's
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 68
DRAFT 10/30/98
• planning process included two education stages. The first was educating the
Steering Committee. The second stage was geared towards residents. In East
Bethel, the first step was to give presentations to citizens who own parcels that
were identified as priority protection sites. These presentations focused on the
significance of the natural areas in their community and on voluntary land
protection options available to landowners. Then, the city's Open Space
Taskforce invited everyone that owned land in East Bethel to an open house.
The event was publicized through local media and flyers, and landowners with
priority sites were sent personal invitations. The event began with a short
presentation, but most of the time was informal and landowners spoke with
people who could answer their questions about land conservation and local
natural resources.
The Ohio Farmland Preservation Task force participated in conferences,
seminars, programs, and annual meetings. These meetings were put on by
agricultural coalitions, township associations, soil and water conservation
• districts, religious groups, land-use organizations, and other rural pubic forums.
The meetings were an opportunity for task force members to educate people
about the farmland preservation and to hear people's concerns.
Because educational efforts will be an on-going process, a separate working
group for education (and perhaps promotion) should be considered. The goal
of educational efforts should be to assist elected officials and landowners in
evaluating alternative land uses in Shorewood. More specific goals, tasks, and
a timeline should be established.
Promotional activities should be geared towards the same groups of people but
should emphasize the City's interest in implementing one of the voluntary
protection options. For example, promotion would be especially important if the
City was proposing a bond referendum for open space acquisition or if the City
was implementing an acquisition program. Both promotional and educational
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 69
DRAFT 10/30/98
• activities should be intensive when the City is considering spending any public
money to protect open space.
Marketing complex ideas such as conservation easements is difficult, but it is
possible. Promotional activities should address the question `what is in it for the
landownerT To maintain the public's attention, the audience must learn the
specific landowner benefits from voluntary open space protection. For example,
Diehl and Barrett (1988) outline four simple `key selling points' for conservation
easements:
1. Easements provide permanent protection
2. Property remains in private ownership
3. Easements are tailored to each set of circumstances
4. Easements can yield tax benefits
In its promotion, the City should also ensure that landowners who expect to
claim a federal tax deduction for a charitable gift are informed about the Internal
Revenue Code requirements and IRS regulations. This is in the best interest of
• the City so that disgruntled landowners (who thought they were going to get a
tax deduction and did not) are not upset with the City or file suit against the City.
Recommendations
• Never give or be perceived as giving legal or financial advice to landowners.
• Encourage interested landowners, perhaps in writing, to get professional
legal and financial advice.
• Information presented should be as unbiased and objective as possible, so
everyone feels comfortable with it.
Step 9 - Implement Land Conservation Options
The land protection options that are selected by the working group will be
executed. Steps 8 and 9 should be executed concurrently.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 70
DRAFT 10/30/98
•
Step 10 - Evaluate Plan Effectiveness
The Open Space Plan's ability to guide land use should be assessed on an
annual basis. The evaluation should be based on the goals and objectives for
land protection outlined in the Plan.
i
F
Step 11 - Continue Long-term Programs
Long-term programs, such as education, will be carried out indefinitely unless
otherwise indicated by the City Council.
i
i
k
t
i
7
e
i
i
I
i
•
q 1 / 11.1 R, 2.
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 264
DRAFT 10/30/98
• 3.2 Assist residents' purchase of land for set-aside through
special assessment procedures
Committee Findinas
The Land Conservation Committee researched a special assessment
procedure that would loan money to residents to purchase open space in their
neighborhood. Such programs are rare but have been implemented in various
forms
Allmann (1997) describes a "benefit assessment district" as a funding
mechanism which establishes a special assessment district to fund open space
acquisition. In this situation, the open space parcel is small in size and its
protection only benefits a small number of citizens. Local governments can sell
tax-exempt bonds for a sales or property tax is assessed in the district to pay
. for the bond. A benefit assessment district is a funding mechanism not a
government unit. The following example of a benefit assessment district was
taken from "Doing Deals" by The Land Trust Alliance:
Citizens of Fairfield, California, successfully challenged the city's annexation
of three new subdivisions outside the town's jurisdictional boundary on the
grounds that the action would cause the "premature" conversion of open
space and agricultural land to urban uses. Under the resulting legal
settlement, the city created a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
(named after the legislators who developed the state enabling language),
composed of the new communities, as a way of financing additional open
space acquisition. Each developed parcel is assessed an annual tax, which
is deductible from federal income taxes. The Fairfield settlement also
created the Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation, a land
trust, to direct the acquisition of open space with the proceeds of the parcel
tax. Although the parcel tax has raised only about $300,000, the foundation
has received additional monies from state and private sources in loans,
commitments, and grants. (page 148)
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 2724
DRAFT 10/30/98
In Shorewood, an-open space acquisition assistance through special
• assessments may be similar to special assessments for improvements.
Neighbors that want to purchase a parcel of undeveloped land in their
neighborhood would first sign a petition that requests that the City fund the
acquisition and then assess the ReighbeFspetitioners for the purchase price
plus interest. The residents would at-se-have to waive their right to a public
hearing and appeal. The City Council would have to pass a resolution
accepting the petition, authorizing that an agreement be drafted between the
City and the petitioners, and identifying funds to be utilized. The parcel would
be urchased on the open market. In the future, the petitioners can resell
the parcels, but any revenue above the original purchase price must be given to
the City.
Petitioners may be required to form an incorporated neighborhood or other
association that can own property. Homeowners *tGuldmay have to make the
arrangements for the purchase and title changes. One of the petitioners would
• be a contact person for dealing with the City, closing, and tax bills.
Fiscal Analysis
Open space parcels in the assistance program will vary in value, so the funding
I source that will provide the purchase money A*41may have to come from various
funds.
There are a number of issues involved with funding:
• How long will the term of the loan be? For how long will the petitioners be
assessed, 51-yeafs-sr,. 10. 15 years or longer?
• The City's cost of capital must be considered. What would the City charge
for interest on the loan? Would the interest be above market rates, if so how
much above market rates?
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 282-4 I
DRAFT 10/30/98
• What is the loss of potential tax revenue? How much of the tax base is the
• City losing by not developing a parcel that has been set up for development,
i.e., has roads and sewer?
• If there were a conservation easement on the parcel, the tax revenue from
the lot would be minimal. In this case, should the acquired lot be tax
exempt?
• What is the impact on the rest of the City's programs to finance
neighborhood acquisition?
• Would there be a minimum or maximum amount for an assessment?
Discussion
Many questions need to be answered before a special assessment program is
feasible. If the City loans public money to neighbors to buy open space there
must be public benefit. Is there conservation value in a parcel that is
surrounded by development on all sides? Is a local neighborhood benefit such I
as acquisition of one small parcel a benefit to the entire community? Should
the City require that a conservation easement be placed on the property?
i Would an easement be a term easement, for 30 years for example, or would it
be perpetual?
Should development on the property be prohibited until the loan is paid back or
even longer?- Should petitioners have
the opportunity to sell the parcel for profit in the future?
Private acquisition through special assessment will take parcels from the City's
tax base. However, any property that is acquired or protected by a conservation
easement will be permanently-taken off the tax base. The City invests public
money into property by building streets and setting up utilities, and if such
property is set aside as open space then the City is not getting paid back from
property taxes on that property. However, these investments are specially
assessed so the impact on revenue may be minimal.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 292-4
DRAFT 10/30/98
• The specifics of the purchase transaction are also an issue. Who would
purchase the property? Would the City buy the lot and then transfer it to the
petitioners, or would the City simply give the money to the petitioners to buy the
land?
Another difficulty with this program is multiple ownership. Would each party
own an equal partial interest? Can petitioners own the parcel even if they sell
their house in the neighborhood? Would a partial interest of the open space
property become a part of the title of each petitioner? Should the City require
I that the petitioners to form an association that can legally buy property?
Why should the City finance a loan when citizens can get a loan at a private
institution (and perhaps get a better interest rate)? Also, a bank can foreclose
on property within a year of defaulting on a loan, but it would take the City 4 to 5
years to foreclose a property. In that 4 or 5 years the City would loose not only
the money that would have been paid back on the loan but also the potential tax
revenue from the lot.
A special assessment for open space acquisition may be an appropriate land
conservation tool if there is money available and public investment in the
I property, in terms of roads, sewer, etc-., has been minimal.
Summary
Assuming that a conservation easement is put on the land, open space would
be;.-- protected in perpetuity to the extend outlined in the easement
agreement.
•
Land Conservation Committee Report Page 302-4-
DRAFT 10/30/98 t
Recommendations
• • Special assessments should be a low priority protection option but they
should be employed when a group of neighbors want to buy an open space
parcel in their neighborhood and there is financing available.
• It should be agreed, in writing, between the City and residents that the parcel
will remain open space for the long term, probably with an easement
agreement.
• The City should, in writing, state that the City will not build a tot lot on the
acquired open space parcel.
The City should require that tie_-petitioners form an association that can
legally own land.
• Policies and procedures regarding the use of City financing should be
established before any such use.
•
•
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
LAND CONSERVATION MEETING CONFERENCE ROOM
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 7:00 A.M.
AGENDA
1 . A. Roll Call
Riesen
Svoboda
Bruno
B . Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Land Conservation Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 1998 (Att.-#2 draft)
3. TAX WORKSHOP LETTER
A letter was sent to area realtors, appraisers, attorney, accountants, and financial advisors
(Att.-#3 letter)
4. REVIEW DRAFT
Review updated draft report (Att.-#4 draft)
5. EXAMPLE OF EASEMENT VALUATION
Dean Riesen
6. ADJOURNMENT
SHOREWOOD LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1998 SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
7:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM
MINUTES
1 . A. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was convened at 7:05 a.m.
Ad Hoc Committee Members Present: Chair Dean Riesen, Frank Svoboda, and Fred
Bruno.
Also Present: Jim Hurm, City Administrator; Brad Nielsen, Planning Director; Mark
Themig, Park Commission Liaison; and Erica Hahn, Planning Intern.
B. REVIEW AGENDA
Nothing further was added to the agenda.
2. MINUTES APPROVED
Minutes from the September 28 and October 12 meetings were approved.
3. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT
The Committee reviewed the draft report. Changes were discussed for Sections 1, 2, 31, and
3.2. It was decided that the estate tax section would be expanded and sent to Ray Rossinni for
review. It was also decided that the final document will have 1.5 spacing and be double-sided.
Ms Hahn will make the revisions and include the revised report in the November 16 meeting
packet.
The first draft of Section 4, "Implementation: Action Plan and Timetable," was handed out and its
content was discussed. Administrator Hurm outlined 11 steps proposed for the Action Plan. The
steps outline a process that was modeled from the Trail Planning Process. The steps were
developed by Administrator Hurm; Brad Nielsen; Erica Hahn; and Mark Koegler, a planning
consultant who was involved with the Trail Planning Process.
Frank Svoboda suggested that implementing the programs recommended in the report may require
separate implementation "tracks" or plans. One track might be the City focusing on acquiring
priority parcels. Another track might be an educational campaign designed to inform residents
about land protection options and perhaps encouraging residents to consider land and conservation
easement donations.
It was agreed that the report should recommend setting aside some funds for the initial phases of
implementation. These funds might be used for producing a brochure about land conservation
options, a newsletter insert, or facilitated community meetings.
T
r
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927• (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128 • www.state.net/shorewood • cityhall@shorewood.state.net
10 November 1998
Realtor, Attorney, Appraiser, Accountant, or Financial Advisor in the Shorewood area
Dear Sir or Ms,
The Shorewood City Council established an ad hoc
Land Conservation Committee this year to investigate
land protection options available to local Tax workshop
governments and private landowners. One of the 20
Committee's tasks is to educate the public about land Nov.
conservation options. Enclosed is a fact sheet "Tax Strategies in Land Conservation
produced by The Green Corridor Project on Transactions" is the title of a workshop
conservation easements which outlines the tax being held Nov. 20 in Roseville, Minn.
benefits to landowners who donate conservation Sponsored by the Green Corridor Project
easements. - a collaborative that includes the Land
Stewardship Project - this workshop is
Please note the article announcing the November 20 designed for professionals helping clients
workshop on tax strategies and land conservation plan for the
sponsored by The Green Corridor Project. The future of
article is from The Land Stewardship Letter, vol. 16, family lands:
no. 3, page 5. and probate
lawyers,
Thank you for your attention. appraisers.
certified public
Sincerely, accountants
Q vw 4 and financial
~/V advisers.
Erica EJ Hahn \ The featured
Planning Department speaker will be
William
Hutton, an
attorney and
editor of The
Back Forty, a
newsletter on land conservation law.
There will be a charge for this work-
shop. For more information, call LSP's
• Kim Hiller at (651) 653-0618. You can
also e-mail Michael Pressman at
<:mpress@mm.org>. Q
f PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ;
'he ~ } rT Conservation Easements
Green : and Tax Benefits for Landowners
COrradOr E` What Is a Conservation Easement?
Project ~y-= ,
A conserv ati on easement is a legally recorded agreement by which landowners may
voluntarily restrict the use of their land- A conservation easement protects important land
QCt~ resources and can be held by a qualified conservation organization (such as the Minnesota
. Land Trust) or local unit of government. Provided that certain conditions are met, donors of
Sheet #3 easements may be eligible for income, estate and/or property tax benefits. One condition is
that there must bean established, recognizable public benefit, such as protecting'raze
t r `species, public water supplies,, or scenic vistas visible from roads. Public access is not a
~rSF r; 3_z requirement
"t
13
Mir Although the duration of a conservation easement can vary depending on the desires of the
~ x`(672Y653!66ls 1-I landowner, tax benefits are available only; for perpetual easements. ` Many land trusts will
only accept perpetual easements; since they provide permanent protection by subjecting all
r ~Chrsugd.Comz~}~
future landowners to thesame restrictions. Conservation easements are also the principal
legal mechanism used to protect land in a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or','.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program (see other fact sheets in this series).',,,
What Types of Land Can Be Protected through Conservation Easements?
Any type of undeveloped or sparsely developed property can be protected with a
conservation easement. Conservation easements can be used to protect agricultural land,
forested land, wildlife areas, wetlands and other scenic or natural lands.
What Effect Does This Agreement Have on My Property Rights?
nx
A landowner who conveys a conservation easement retains all.rights to use the land for any,<
purposes that do not interfere with the conservation of the property as'stated in the 'te r m.sa_
of ;
the easement. The landowner retains the title to the property, the right to sell it,.the right to
restrict public access, and the right to give it to whomever he or, she chooses., However
most or all of the rights to develop are restricted or eliminated. The terms of a conservation
easement are individually tailored to reflect each landowner's particular needs, situation and
property;, For example,. one landowner may, want to prevent any future development.,
i.Another may want to retain the right to construct an additional barn-olr shed...,kihird
landowner may, want to reduce, beyond what is allowed by current zoning,'the number of
homes that may be built on a certain parcel. The easement can be written to apply to the',
entire property or to only a portion of it
Y" } I
How Is the Easement Value Determined? }
Land ownership can be viewed as owning a variety of separate rights on the property. These .
rights include, but are not limitedto, the right to farm the,`land, the right to build on the land,
and the right to exclude the public. When a conservation easement limits any of these
rights, the value of the land is affected. The value is determined by having a `before'. and
`after" appraisal completed by a qualified appraiser who meets IRS requirements. First, the
and is appraised in light of its full development potential. Then the land is appraised again,
taking into account,the easement restrictions which limit some or all of the property's
development rights. The difference between these two figures is .the value of the easement.
~L
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Executive Summary
In March 1998, the City Council created the Ad Hoc Land Conservation
Committee to research land conservation options available to local government
and to design an implementation program. The Committee's goal was to
recommend a process to the City Council that will permanently protect natural
open space in Shorewood by voluntary land protection mechanisms.
The Committee compiled information about land with development potential in
Shorewood (Section 2). This data includes acreage, natural features,
development potential, zoning, and location relative to other open space.
Ninety-seven vacant and 47 occupied parcels with development potential were
inventoried.
The Committee researched conservation tools and developed methods for
conserving land in Shorewood. For each option, the Committee's findings are
described and its appropriateness for Shorewood is discussed in Section 3.
Conservation easement and land donations
A conservation easement is a legal agreement in which landowners voluntarily
limit the land use on their property. Soliciting and accepting land and easement
donations meets the objectives of assisting voluntary private land conservation
and protecting land in perpetuity without the cost of buying easements or land.
Because of the costs associated with holding land and easements, donations
should meet the City's criteria for open space parcels.
Recommendations
• Accept land donations if there are few costs associated with holding the title,
the local tax base is not adversely affected, the property has conservation
value, or an easement donation is not feasible for the landowner.
• Accept perpetual conservation easement donations on land that meets the
City's criteria for important open space.
Land Registry Program
In a land registry program, landowners enroll their land with a conservation
organization and make a non-binding pledge to protect their land. Registered
landowners are recognized for their stewardship at a ceremony or other public
event. Registry programs are an inexpensive way to educate the public about
land conservation.
Recommendation
Develop a registry program that is consistent with the City's open space goals
and financial resources.
i47-
:~tz
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12198
Special Assessment Program for Private Open Space Acquisition
This program would loan money to citizens, so they can purchase open space
in their neighborhood. The citizens are assessed for the cost of the property
with some interest. Assuming that a conservation easement is put on the land,
open space would be protected in perpetuity to the extent outlined in the
easement agreement. A special assessment program may be time consuming
and difficult to administer.
Recommendations
• A special assessment program should be a low priority protection option, but
it should be employed when a group of neighbors want to buy an open
space parcel in their neighborhood and the City can finance the purchase
without compromising other City needs.
• Require a perpetual conservation easement on open space property
acquired through a special assessment program.
Transfer of Development Rights Program (TDR)
In a TDR program, developers can buy development credits from people who
own open space. A conservation easement is put on the open space if the
owner sells his or her development rights to a developer. Because land with
development potential is scattered throughout the city establishing a sending
and receiving area would be difficult, if not impossible. TDR programs are best
suited for agricultural areas that are undeveloped and are under pressure to
become residential areas. TDR programs permanently protect open space
while compensating landowners who voluntarily restrict development on their
property.
Recommendation
A TDR program would be neither feasible nor desirable in Shorewood.
Purchase of Development Rights Program (PDR)
In a PDR program, the City would buy conservation easements on land that had
been identified as important open space. PDR programs permanently protect
open space, however the City must purchase conservation easements and
dedicate staff time to program administration.
Recommendations
• If the City secures a stable funding mechanism, a PDR program would be a
feasible and desirable land conservation tool in Shorewood.
• The PDR program should be applied in a situation where the City cannot
afford to purchase an open space parcel outright or the landowner wishes to
retain ownership.
i i4-7
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Outright Purchase
Outright acquisition allows the City to determine the current and future
management of open space.
Recommendations
• The criteria used to select open space parcels should be developed by
citizens.
• As land is tax forfeited, the City should consider it for purchase.
• The Open Space Plan should identify funding sources, staffing
responsibilities, and long-term land management for an acquisition program.
• If a referendum is required, an educational campaign would be necessary to
make voters aware of the issues. Voters should have a clear understanding
that their taxes might go up and that not every open space parcel in every
neighborhood will be purchased.
Section 4 recommends a planning process that will develop the Open Space
Plan. This report represents the beginning of that process, and the report
should be refined to ultimately become Shorewood's Open Space Plan. The
Land Conservation Committee strongly recommends that citizens have
opportunities to contribute meaningful input in the planning and implementation
of the Open Space Plan.
The Land Conservation Committee suggests a number of steps and a timetable
to further develop the Open Space Plan. A visioning session will be necessary
to ensure that the Plan reflects the community's values . A working group(s) will
be established that may consist of Planning and Park Commissioners and
citizens. Open space parcels in Shorewood will be prioritized for protection.
The planning process also will identify funding sources for open space
protection. Steps are outlined that should be taken to implement the Plan.
Implementation includes promoting the Plan, executing protection tools,
evaluating the Plan, and educating officials and residents on an on-going basis
about Shorewood's natural resources and the land protection options available
to local governments and private individuals.
Recommendations for Plan Administration
• The working group(s) should have citizen representation.
• Citizens should have meaningful input:
1. When the community develops a vision of open space in Shorewood
2. When criteria for selecting and ranking open space parcels are
developed and when open space parcels are prioritized
3. In budgeting for acquisition of development rights or purchase of
property.
I iii4-7
I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• The role of the Planning and Park Commissions should be determined by
the Commissions and the City Council.
Recommendations for Establishing a Land Conservation
Organization
• The City should not establish a new nonprofit land conservation
organization for protecting land in Shorewood.
• The City should partner with an existing land' conservation organization if the
following circumstances arise: a quick sale, a parcel that requires intensive
management, and landowners that do not want to deal with the City.
Recommendations for Developing a Community Vision of Open
Space and Ranking Selection Criteria
• Hold a public meeting to develop a community vision of open space and
to develop and rank a list of criteria for prioritizing open space parcels.
• Invite the general public to the meeting through publicity.
• Send invitations for the meeting to people who have an interest in open
space issues.
Recommendations for Creating a Working Group(s)
• Establish a working group in the form of a steering committee, review
• board, or task force to draft open space goals and objectives based on
the community vision for open space.
• The group should include Park and Planning Commissioners as well as
citizens from all 4 precincts.
The City should develop an Open Space Plan to be added to the
Comprehensive Plan that includes specific open space parcels to be protected,
the conservation options to protect the parcels, and funding for protection. The
strongest tools that the City has to protect the remaining natural open space in
Shorewood are conservation easements and land acquisition.
iv47 I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
I
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of acreage and potential number of lots for vacant and
occupied parcels with development potential.
Table 2. Plant and animal occurrences in and around Shorewood.
Table 3. Estimated tax impacts of a $1,000,000 bond issued by the City of
Shorewood.
Table 4. Open space referenda in the Twin Cities metro area.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Open Space Plan development and implementation.
v_47-
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Table of Contents
10 Executive Summary ii
List of Tables vIV,
List of Figures v_NI
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-11.1 Committee Purpose 33-
1.2 Scope and Methodology 44-
1.2.1 Summary of Committee meetings 44
1.2.2 Parameters used in analysis 66
1.3 Report Limitations 66-
2.0 INVENTORY OF LAND WITH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 8&
3.0 EVALUATION OF LAND PROTECTION OPTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 1124
3.1 Private land conservation 12442
3.1.1 Donations of conservation easements, restricted titles, and unrestricted titles 1344
3.1.2 Land registry program 22?4
3.2 Assist residents' purchase of land for set-aside through special assessment
procedures 24-24
3.3 Special programs and designations 22 824
3.3.1 Transfer of development rights program 28a-&
3.3.2 Purchase of development rights program 3039
3.4 Outright purchase 3 434
3.5 Regulatory Controls 444-4
3.6 Choosing a conservation method 4444
v i4-7
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION: ACTION PLAN AND TIMELINE 474
4.1 Planning Process i054
Step 1 - Approve Report and Commit to Planning Process 5034
i
Step 2 - Determine Plan Administration 5039
Step 3 - Develop Community Vision for Open Space and Develop Criteria for Prioritizing Parcels58-5&
Step 4 - Create Working Group(s) 626
Step 5 - Identify Priority Open Space Parcels 6565
Step 6 - Develop a Land Protection Strategy 6606
Step 7 - Finalize Open Space Plan 6606
4.2 Plan Implementation 6-664
Step 8 - Educate Residents about Land Protection Options and Promote Plan 67fr7
Step 9 - Implement Land Conservation Options 7074
Step 10 - Evaluate Plan Effectiveness 707$
Step 11 - Continue Long-term Programs 7074
Draft Timeline 714+
5.0 APPENDICES 72-7-2
• Appendix A. Presettlement vegetation of Minnesota. 7 27-2-
Appendix B. Natural Communities and Rare Species of Carver, Hennepin, and Scott
Counties, Minnesota. 733
Appendix C . Information sources 7744
Appendix D. Finance Director's memo on a potential bond referendum. 7 874
Appendix E. Sample conservation easement. 8 884
Appendix F. Federal regulations for qualified conservation contributions. 8984
Appendix G. Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's Scenic and Natural Areas
Grant Program. 10444
Appendix H . Summary data tables 10505
Appendix I. Map of parcels with development potential in Shorewood 106106
v i i47-
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix J. Descriptions of the significant natural features in Shorewood found by
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's Natural Heritage and Nongame
Research Program. 1084-" I
Appendix K. A simple example of the income tax benefits of a land or conservation
easement donation. 114444
I
Appendix L. A simple example of estate tax deductions from land or easement
donation. 11614-6
Appendix M. Outline of a successful bond referendum. Trust for Public Land.1174 17
Appendix N. Conservation tools and strategies. 11
Appendix O. Proposed language for open space protection for the Land Use Chapter
of the Comprehensive Plan. 44-214
Appendix P. Options for facilitating community involvement in the planning
process 126446
Appendix Q. A preliminary list of criteria for rating open space parcels considered
for protection. 12744 I
Appendix R. Sample Point System for Prioritizing Parcels with Development
Potential. 1291?9
Appendix S. Land protection options for landowners. 1314-34
Appendix T. The City of Maplewood's guidelines for open space management.1 3 24-34
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1374-3-7
Additional Resources 1384
vli4
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
1.0 Introduction
Many municipalities around the country have experienced rapid urban growth
and have struggled with balancing the need for development and preserving
the natural character of their communities. In recent years local governments
have taken on more fiscal responsibility for protecting open space in their
communities. Across the country, more and more citizens have approved park
and open space bond referenda, 70% nation wide in November 1996 (Trust for
I Public Land 1998)-(GitatiGR). In the Twin Cities Metro area, many city
governments have incorporated open space protection in their comprehensive
plans. Some of these initiatives have begun at the grassroots level and others
at the City Council or administrative level.
Land conservation efforts in the City of Maplewood, which is 80% developed
were initiated by a group of citizens concerned by proposed development in
their neighborhood. In 1993, Maplewood passed a $5 million bond referendum
for open space acquisition. Maplewood residents were willing to shoulder the
cost of $24 per year per household for 20 years. The process of land
acquisition has been an on-going process for a number of years. To date the
city has acquired 210 acres of open space. Maplewood also established an
Open Space Committee of citizens to evaluate every underdeveloped parcel
larger than one acre in Maplewood. 'rhe city also modified its comprehensive
plan to include open space protection and created a Land Management Plan
that deals with issues such as-GR which open space parcels trails should be
developed on.
In the west metro suburbs, an area of rapid growth, communities are also taking
action. The Eden Prairie Land Trust started a process to protect 96 acres in the
Minnesota River Valley, and in 1994 Eden Prairie passed a bond referendum of
$1.95 million to acquire the land. In 1995, Plymouth passed a $2.2 million
referendum to fund open space acquisition. Also, the Minnetonka City Council
147-
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
has established a citizen advisory committee to investigate open space
protection in its community. In addition, there is an active member chapter of
The Minnesota Land Trust, a non-profit land conservation organization, that-
^rt-works with landowners to protect their land.
The City of Shorewood hired Decision Resources Inc. to survey residents about
parks and trails. Sixty-five percent of residents surveyed said that they would
prefer undeveloped land in their community remain undeveloped.
Why are communities investing their resources in protecting open space? What
is open space and what does it do for us? Open space can be defined as any
undeveloped land or natural landscape features with scenic, aesthetic, or
conservation value. Natural areas give us a distinct sense of place, provide
recreational and educational opportunities, and aesthetically enhance our
communities. In addition to quality of life issues, the landscape functions in
several ways to benefit people: I
• filtering and cleansing air and water;
• recycling water, including recharging ground water;
• intercepting rain and snow thereby slowing and reducing runoff;
• providing habitat for plants and animals.
`Gray' infrastructure, e.g., roads and buildings, has been the focus of our
communities' attention in developing areas. Much of our community's
resources have been put into gray infrastructure because it provides us with
valuable services, but it requires maintenance and repair. `Green'
infrastructure, e.g., natural areas, has relatively little overhead, requires little
maintenance, and appreciates in value over time. Natural areas offer a great
deal to our communities, but their contributions are sometimes taken for
granted.
I
24-7-
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Before European settlement, the Minnetonka area was dominated by `Big
Woods' and prairie. Big Woods are forests of sugar maple, basswood, elm, red
oak and white oak trees. The prairie in this area was a wet prairie and had
bluejoint grass, cordgrass, cattails, rushes, and sedges. Today, only a small
fraction of the pre-settlement natural communities remains. (See Appendix A
for a map of pre-settlement vegetation and Appendix B for a map of remaining
significant natural areas.)
The Shorewood City Council recognizes the value of the natural environment in
its community and wishes to ensure that future residents will have opportunities
to enjoy the natural character of Shorewood in the future. Close to 90%ey
pest of Shorewood's land suited for development has been developed. In
light of this situation, the City Council created an Ad Hoc Land Conservation
Committee in March 1998. The Council selected Dean Riesen to be Committee
Chair and Frank Svoboda and Fred Bruno also satserved on the Committee.
1.1 Committee Purpose
The Land Conservation Committee was established to research land
conservation options available to local government and to design an
I implementation program for eligible land (City of Shorewood, Resolution No.
98-025). The Committee's goal is to recommend a process to the City Council
that will permanently protect and increase the amount of natural open space in
Shorewood. The Committee's objectives were to:
1. Research land conservation tools available to local governments;
2. Educate City Council members and Shorewood residents about land
protection options;
3. Recommend a process to protect open space in perpetuity by either
creating a non-profit land conservation organization, or using an existing
land conservation organization;
4. Develop survey questions to assess community support for public
financing of open space acquisition;
5. Communicate with the Planning and Park Commissions about their roles
in the land conservation planning process; and
347-
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/12/98
6. Collect preliminary data on parcels with development potential, Le., lots
that can be subdivided;
7. Recommend objectives and a work plan for a land conservation program
in the form of a committee report to the Council by November 1, 1998.
This report summarizes a preliminary natural resource inventory, describes land
conservation alternatives for the City, recommends the best alternatives and
outlines an implementation program.
1.2 Scope and Methodology
The alternatives analyzed were land protection options suitable for the City of
Shorewood. The Committee considered the City's Comprehensive Plan, its
residents, and its financial and natural resources. The Committee met bi-
weekly from June to (November) 1998. In addition to Committee members,
Jim Humor, City Administrator, Brad Nielsen,` Planning Director, a4;4-Erica Hahn,
planning intern, Paula Caliies. Park Commission Liaison, and Mark Themig,
Planning Commission Liaison attended Committee meetings. The Committee
sought the assistance of legal, planning, financial, and land conservation
professionals (Appendix C). The Committee also inventoried land with
development potential in Shorewood to identify parcels with open space.
1.2.1 Summary of Committee meetings
After the Committee developed its goals and objectives, it established a work
plan. Committee goals and objectives were refined in later meetings.
Staff reported on bond referenda for open space acquisition held in the Twin
Cities Metro area. The Committee also reviewed an analysis of financing open
space acquisition in Shorewood done by Al Rolex, City Finance Director
(Appendix D).
The Committee familiarized itself with current issues that the Planning and Park
Commissions were considering. Staff reported on the Planning Commission's
447-
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
discussion of changes to the Comprehensive Plan's Natural Resource Section.
The Committee also reviewed the Park Commission's purpose and recent
• activities. The Committee discussed the results of the Park and Trail Survey
that was completed in 1998. The City of Woodbury's phone survey regarding
open space was also reviewed, and potential survey questions regarding open
space in Shorewood were discussed.
To gather information about parcels with development potential, a worksheet
was created for site visits. The worksheet included information about the
natural features of the site as well as basic information about the parcel, e.g.,
acreage and zoning. Staff presented the Committee with preliminary findings of
the inventory. (Inventory results are in Section 2, Inventory of land with
development potential.)
The Committee discussed conservation easements as a land protection tool in
several meetings. Anne Haines, Land Protection and Chapter Specialist of the
Minnesota Land Trust, discussed land trusts and conservation easements with
the Committee. The Committee also studied a conservation easement
agreement between the City of Plymouth and Carlson Real Estate Company
(Appendix E) and a model easement agreement that was drafted by the
Minnesota Land Trust (Appendix E). Federal regulations regarding qualified
conservation contributions were reviewed (Appendix F). Dennis Jabbs, tax
accountant and Shorewood resident, discussed conservation easement
valuation with the Committee. The City Attorney was asked to comment on a
model conservation easement agreement assuming the City was the easement
I holder (Appendix- Jean Coleman, Land-use Planner and Attorney,
discussed with the Committee the role of the City as a holder of conservation
easements. Ray Rossini, attorney, spoke to the Committee about the estate tax
benefits of charitable donations, specifically conservation easements.
The Committee discussed other issues. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources' Scenic and Natural Areas Grant Program was considered as a
547-
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
potential funding source for open space acquisition (Appendix G). The I
Committee also discussed the offer from Shirley and Alvin Wagner's attorney to
sell the Wagner's property to the City.
Planning and Parks Commissioners were provided with the Committee's
meeting agendas and minutes and were invited to Committee meetings to
discuss the role of the Commissions in the imp!ementation of protection options
developed by the Committee.
1.2.2 Parameters used in analysis
The Committee analyzed land protection options available to local governments
by considering Shorewood's specific circumstances. The parameters used in
analysis included the following:
• goals of Shorewood's comprehensive plan;
• the City's potential financial commitments;
• potential tax burden on citizens;
• cost-effectiveness of protection options;
• duration of the protection, i.e., temporary or perpetual;
• level of protection, i.e., some or no development allowed;
• acreage, abundance, and distribution of parcels with development
potential in Shorewood;
• Shorewood's ability to honor legal, including maintenance, agreements
in the future;
• Shorewood's demographics;
• ecological functions of natural systems; and
• landowner rights.
1.3 Report Limitations
This report contains useful information on land conservation tools. It can be
read and placed on the shelf, or the Committee's recommendations can be
647-
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
implemented. The City Council and Park and Planning Commissions must
decide if and to what level the recommendations in the report are to be carried
out.
•
i
i 747-
Land Conservation Committee Report f
DRAFT 11112/98
• 2.0 Inventory of Land with Development Potential
The first step in developing a process to protect open space is to gather
information about existing open space. The Committee compiled information
about land with development potential in Shorewood. This data includes
acreage, natural features, land value, structure value (if applicable),
development potential, zoning, and location relative to other open space.
Ninety-seven vacant and 47 occupied parcels with development potential were
inventoried. For each parcel a number of factors were measured (see
Appendix H for the list of factors and Appendix I for a map of parcels with
development potential in Shorewood). The average vacant parcel was 2.0
acres, and the average occupied parcel was somewhat larger, 3.4 acres (Table
1). Some vacant parcels had small structures, but most were not developed.
Occupied parcels were primarily residential.
Table 1. Summary of acreage and potential number of lots for vacant and
occupied parcels with development potential.
Vacant Occupied Overall
Number of Parcels 97 47 144
Total Acreage 189.0 156.8 347.5
Average Acreage 2.0 3.4 2.7
Minimum Acreage 0.4 0.8
Maximum Acreage 13.0 7.7
Total Number of Potential Lots 141 91 232
Average Number of Potential Lots 1.8 2.2 1.6
Minimum Number of Potential Lots 0 0
Maximum Number of Potential Lots 12 12
Each parcel's natural features were inventoried. Natural features included
dominant species and covertype, e.g., woodland or wetland. The Committee
compiled general information about natural features. A detailed inventory was
not done because it would have been expensive and time consuming to do a
847-
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
detailed study of every parcel in Shorewood with development potential. It was
• noted which parcels appeared to have ecological value, e.g., a relatively intact
natural community, or sensitive natural resources, e.g., steep slopes.
In the area where parcels occurred, housing density was estimated. The zoning
district of each parcel with development potential was recorded. The number of
immediately adjacent residential units was used to estimate the number of
people that would be served if the parcel wets-I4were donated to or purchased
by the City and beceame permanent public open space.
Property values were taken from the Hennepin County Tax Records . These
property values represent the value of property based on its current use and do
not reflect a property's highest and best use. The market value of the eleven
largest parcels was estimated by the Hennepin County Assessor's Office.
Development potential was determined by the number of potential lots into
. which the parcel could be subdivided. The number of potential lots was
calculated for each parcel with the allowable density and the amount of
buildable land.
To assess the availability of open space in Shorewood neighborhoods, the
presence of public permanent open space in each half-section was recorded. A
few half-sections that Shorewood is in include other cities. The area that the
City has in these half-sections was much smaller than a regular half-section, so
these smallpartial half-sections were combined with adjacent -partial half-
sections so the areas compared were of similar sizes. Open space was
considered to be any park or other natural area that has public access and is
permanently protected. This classification does not include lakes. Another
measure of open space availability used was the distance from inventoried
parcels to the nearest public open space.
•
I 947
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
A parcels' relationship to adjacent natural areas was estimated. For instance, I
is some parcels expand adjacent natural areas, others serve as a buffer for
wildlife or as permeable surface to control storm water runoff. To estimate these
functions, it was noted if the studied parcels are adjacent to parks or other
natural areas, including lakes.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Natural Heritage and
Nongame Research Program reviewed its database for any significant natural
features in and around Shorewood. There are eight known occurrences of
special animals of concern and one geological process (see Appendix J for
descriptions). Of the eight plant and animal occurrences, six species were
observed, see Table 2.
Table 2. Plant and animal occurrences in and around Shorewood.
Last innesota tatus era
Observed Status
Date
• e -s ou ere hawk,* uteo meatus 1 4 specia concern none
Bald eagle, Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus 1998 special concern threatened
Blanding's turtle,* Emydoidea blandingii 1994 threatened none
Fox snake, Elaphe vulpina 1939 none^ none
Least darter, Etheostoma microperca 1997 special concern none
Pugnose shiner, Notropis anogenus 1941 special concern none
"observed twice
no legal status but rare and may become listed if decline continues
All of the observed species, except the least darter, are species of concern
because their habitat has been altered or destroyed. Habitat alteration and
destruction can include wetland filling, increased turbidity in lakes, forest
fragmentation, and loss of native vegetation. Red-shouldered hawk, Blanding's
turtle, and bald eagle populations have declined. In Minnesota, both fish
species have limited distributions and few major population centers. In addition
to habitat loss and alteration, the Blanding's turtle and fox snake populations
are declining because they are collected for sale as pets.
104-
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• In Minnesota, it is estimated that there are less than 200 red-shouldered hawk
pairs. However, its range in Minnesota has always been limited, so it is difficult
to determine a `healthy' red-shouldered hawk population. It relies on large
contiguous forests, and the increase in open country due to agriculture and
urbanization has led to more red-tailed hawk habitat.
The bald eagle is a federally endangered species in the rest of the continental
United States, but because of increased nesting success it is listed as state
threatened in Minnesota. The bald eagle population has risen dramatically and
some suggest that it should be removed from the federally threatened list.
The significant geological feature is a stagnation moraine, a hill that is the result
of glacial deposition. The moraine itself is not in Shorewood, but a vantage
point that has a good view of the moraine is in Shorewood. The vantage point
is important because it is a place where a well preserved example of a
• significant geological process can been seen.
Data collected on the natural features of parcels with development potential
provide a base of information that the City can use in its land conservation
efforts. The City will require a.more detailed inventory of parcels that may be
considered for protection. A list of suggested factors to measure and estimate
for each site is listed in the Site Selection portion of Section 4.
•
114
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
. 3.0 Evaluation of Land Protection Options and
Recommendations
The Committee researched conservation tools and developed methods for
conserving land in Shorewood. For each option, the Committee's findings are
described and its appropriateness for Shorewood is discussed. -A concise I
statement summarizes the protection tool. Finally, recommendations are made
for each option. The implementation of conservation tools will be described in
the A8tiG Section 4, the Action Plan. I
Using comprehensive planning as a conservation tool was not researched
because the City has already integrated open space preservation in its
comprehensive plan.
• 3.1 Private land conservation
There are a number of land protection options available to private landowners.
This section discusses conservation easements and land donations as well as
land registry programs. The most popular option is conservation easements
because landowners receive tax benefits while retaining ownership. Registry
programs raise awareness about land conservation and recognize landowners
who value the natural environment of their property.
•
124
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• 3.1.1 Donations of conservation easements, restricted titles, and
unrestricted titles
Committee Findings
Conservation easements
A conservation easement is a legal agreement in which landowners voluntarily
restrict the use of their land. Conservation easements are a flexible protection
tool. The terms of an agreement are determined mutually between grantee and
grantor, so easements can be written to accommodate the needs of both
landowners and easement holders. Easements are filed with the county in
which the land is located. Landowners can permanently protect their land by
donating or selling a conservation easement. Organizations that qualify to hold
conservation easements are land conservation organizations and government
agencies. With an easement, landowners can donate or sell any of their
property rights, e.g., the right to farm or the right to develop. ( See Appendix E
for sample conservation easements)
•
Conservation easements permanently protect the resources specified in the
agreement. 'Term' easements, which are not perpetual, do not allow
permanent protection and typically do not provide any tax benefits. Easements
are tailored to each situation, so an easement agreement can identify a section
of a parcel where development may occur and another section where all or
some development is restricted. Conservation easements can be written to
ensure that current land-use, such as parkland remaining recreational, remains
the same over time.
Landowners can receive a substantial tax benefit when they donate a
conservation easement to a qualifying non-profit organization. The easement
must protect resources that are of public benefit such as providing scenic vistas,
protecting water resources, or providing open space. However, a conservation
I easement on private land does not create+re public access. It should be
•
134
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
noted that putting an easement on land that is not suitable for development,-
. e.g., a-wetla;~d; may not provide any tax benefit.
Easements become a part of a property's title and all future owners must comply
with the terms of the easement. If landowners feel differently in the future, they I
cannot 'undo' a perpetual easement. It is the responsibility of the easement
holder to monitor the property to ensure that the terms of the easement are
being observed.
The value of an easement determines a donor's income tax deduction. If the
owner plans on taking an income tax deduction. Tthe value of the easement
must be determined by a qualified appraiser familiar with IRS requirements for
charitable donation deductions. First, the land is appraised with all of its
development rights. Then the land is appraised with the conservation
easement. The difference between the two appraisals is the value of the
• easement. If the easement qualifies under IRS code as a charitable donation,
the easement value can be taken as an income tax deduction. T- eA donor can
deduct p to 30% of theirthe ' adjusted
gross income per year. The unused portion of the deduction can be carried
forward for up to be taken aRR unlly fGF 5 consecutive years untilse the entire
value of the donation saw-leis -taken as a deduction (see Appendix K for an
example). Donated easements must have permanent restrictions to qualify for
any deductions. Putting an easement on a title Fnayis likely to reduce the
property's resale value.
Landowners who want to protect their land may wish to donate their land
instead of a conservation easement. Property that has an easement or other
limiting legal mechanism on it has a restricted title. Landowners can donate a
restricted title to ensure that the property's land use does not change in the
future.
•
1447 l
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
. Title donations
Tax issues with title donations are similar to those involved with easement
donations. As with conservation easement donations, the donation of property
provides an income tax deduction. If there are no legal restrictions on the title,
the deduction is equal to the full fair market value of the property. If landowners
donate their property in bequest, i.e., in their will, and are concerned about
future use of the property, they can discuss what their wishes are for the land in
a letter of understanding to the recipient. Easement and title donations made in
bequest are not deductible from income taxes, but they lower the value of an
estate thus lowering the estate taxes that heirs pay on their inheritance.
Donating land with reservation of life estate allows landowners to live on the
property for the rest of their lives and landowners may receive an income tax
deduction. After the donation, while the donor is still living, the title is held by
the land conservation organization. If a landowner donates their land in
bequest, they should make certain that the receiving organization can accept
• the donation.
A landowner may not be able to use the entire income tax deduction from a land
or easement donation if their income is low relative to the value of their property.
If a landowner cannot realize all of the tax benefit from a donation, donations
I can be phasedsta-ggered. In such a case, a conservation easement +should be
donated first, so the landowner can take deductions for five years. Then the
landowner can donate the title to the land whose value would have been
decreased by the easement) and can receive tax benefits for an.additional five
I years. Similarly, landowners could staphase a donation by donating
partial interests. In this situation, the landowner retains the title until full interest
1 has been donated. While staggeFiRg phase donations over a number of years
I may help landowners realize more income tax benefits, the IRS does not value
partial interest donations as much as full interest donations. Subsequently, the
total tax deduction may be smaller when partial interests are donated than if the
•
1547
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98 I
full title were donated. Landowners who cannot take advantage of the entire
• deduction can also wait to make the donation in a year when they expect a
higher than average income. To lower the easement value, so that the full
income tax deduction can be utilized, one could put an easement on a portion
of the property or limit only some land use on the property.
An advantage of the City or a land conservation organization, e.g., The Nature
Conservancy, acquiring titles to open space parcels is public access to the
property. Again, easement donation does not require public access because
private landowners retain the title to the land.
Estate planning
The estate tax system is based on the value of assets including property
appraisals. When one spouse dies,. marital exemptions are unlimited. Thus
• upon dying, a spouse can give all G41;ei-wealth to the# surviving spouse and
the surviving spouse pays no estate tax. In 1998, there is a $625,000
exemption for estate taxes for family or other recipients. The $625,000
exemption is scheduled to increase to $1,000,000 by 2006. For heirs to receive
estate tax reductions from a conservation easement, the decedent must have
donated the easement during his or her life time and owned the property for 3 or I
more years before death. There is an estate tax exclusion that is in addition to
the reduction from the taxable estate of the value of the easement. This
additional exclusion is limited to $100,000 in 1998, $200,000 in 1999, $300,000
in 2000, $400,000 in 2001, and $500,000 in 2002. (See Appendix L for a
simple example.)-
The value of land in an estate is subject to reduction if the value of the
easement is less than 30% of the value of the land. After reduction by the value
164-
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
of the easement, 40% of the value of the land is the maximum estate tax
exclusion for a conservation easement donation.
In summary, there are three potential benefits from making _a charitable
donation of land or a conservation easement. The first is an income tax
deduction for the donor during their life time. The second benefit from donating
either land or a conservation easement is lowering the value of one's estate
and thus the estate taxes that one's heir will pay. The third benefit is the
additional exclusion of estate taxes that lowers the estate taxes that one's heirs
will pay. _
Land exchange
Another alternative is 'trade land' donations. If a willing landowner owns
property that is not valuable in terms of conservation, e.g., a developed
suburban lot, the parcel can be donated to a nonprofit organization with the
• understanding that the property will be sold to finance an easement or title
purchase of another parcel that does have conservation value (Allmann 1997b).
Fiscal Analysis
Staff time would be the largest expense associated with accepting conservation
easement and title donations. Staff would be involved with contacting
landowners and negotiating easement terms. The City Attorney would be
needed to draft and file easements and titles appropriately. The City would be
responsible in perpetuity for the cost of monitoring easement agreements and, if
necessary, enforcing the terms of the agreement. Some private non-profit land
conservation organizations require that the easements they hold are endowed
because the financial responsibility of holding an easement is expensive and
for the long term. Owning land could be expensive if the property requires
intensive maintenance or is a liability in other ways, -e , insurance.
•
174
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Discussion
Conservation easements and land donations are attractive land protection
options for the City because they are incentive-based protection options.
However, there are some potential problems associated with donations. It is
important that potential donors are aware that if the value of their easement or
land donation is large relative to their income they may not be able to deduct
the full amount of the donation
Tax benefits for landowners can be great, but not in all circumstances. Tax laws
are continually being modified, and landowners should consult a professional
tax advisor who is familiar with current tax laws regarding conservation
easements and charitable donations. Landowners should also seek the advice I
of a qualified appraiser who is experienced with charitable gifts. i
• Conservation easements allow property to stay in private hands, so
landowners continue to pay taxes on the property. However, conservation
easements have occasionally reduced property values and hence lowered
property tax rates. A reduction in property taxes resulting from a conservation
easement should not be a motivating factor for donating or selling an easement
because the effect conservation easements have on property values and tax
rates depends on many factors including the discretion of county assessors. f
Parcels with conservation easements have commonly increased the value of t
4sthe surrounding property. Because the property tax benefits are an unknown,
it should be clearly stated to landowners that a property tax reduction should
not be the primary reason for an easement donation.
Landowners who wish to be certain that their land will be protected can donate
a conservation easement to one organization and then donate the restricted title
to another organization. Both donations can result in income tax deductions.
184-7
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Easement holders must be able to defend the easement.' The holders monitor
and enforce the terms of the easement. Many nonprofit land conservation
organizations monitor property on a regular basis. If the City holds a
I conservation easement= it should document the physical features of the
property, so the terms of the easement can be enforced more easily. If the
agreement is broken by the grantor, the holder can file suit for compensation or
to correct the damage.
I To ease monitoring and avoid legal conflicts., easement holders should make a
point of informing future landowners about the terms of the easement. In the
easement agreement, the City could require that the landowner be responsible
for any legal fees if the landowner broke the terms of the agreement.
Conservation easements are a versatile tool, and each agreement is tailored to
the needs of the grantor and grantee. The City would have flexibility when
committing to a monitoring regime and could make certain that the monitoring is
feasible in terms of cost. The City could also reject easements that would
require too much administration.
The City of Woodbury has had'difficulty enforcing scenic easements. Scenic
I easements are usually a strip of land perhaps 100 feet wide that is in a natural
state. The strips of land serve to screen residential areas from commercial
areas or to keep the area around a lake or wetland in a natural state.
Woodbury's experience has been that landowners who owned the land when
the easement was granted bought into the idea of the easement. However, the
city has encountered problems when subsequent owners either do not know
the easement is on the deed or do not want the screen or natural area on their
property. In addition, some people have used the protected strips -as a
dumping area for grass clippings and brush. To raise awareness of the
easements, the city periodically reminds residents with restricted titles that the
easements are in place. Now Woodbury will accept dedications of scenic strips,
I 194
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/12/98
but it will not accept scenic easements. (Steve Kermnk, City of Woodbury
I
Environmental Planner, personal communication).
Woodbury and the City of Lake Elmo recently partnered with the Minnesota
Land Trust to protect open space in their communities. Developers granted
easements on the open space reserved in a cluster design. Some of the
easements are held jointly between the land trust and city.
If the City sells an open space parcel to a private or another public party, it could
put an easement on the title before selling. Also, if existing park land or other
public land had a unique or highly sensitive resource, conservation easements I
would also be desirable.
Other considerations are the liabilities associated with holding a title, e.g.,
insurance and maintenance. Also, if the land is held by a public entity, it is not
contributing to the local tax base. Holding the title to land that requires
continuous or extensive maintenance, e.g., controlling noxious weeds, or land
that has other liabilities would only be reasonable in a couple of situations. One
of these situations is if the Council and community support accepting the
donation and funds have been secured for restoring the natural community on
the property. (The restoration potential of the land would have to be
professionally assessed.) Property that is donated without any conservation or
open space value should be sold on the open market to raise funds for
acquiring an easement or title to land with conservation value.
Summary
Soliciting and accepting donations and holding conservation easements,
restricted titles, and unrestricted titles meets the objectives of assisting voluntary I
private land conservation and protecting land (to the degree specified in
2204
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
easement agreements) in perpetuity without the cost of buying easements or
land.
Recommendations for Easement and Title Donations
The City should not advise residents on tax matters. Instead it
should inform them of their options and advise them to consult -a-tax
and legal professionals.
Conservation easement donations
• Solicit and accept easement donations if acquisition is too costly
or unnecessary, e.g., when the owners want to continue to live
on the land.
• Reject easements that require intensive administration and make
landowners responsible for legal fees if landowners break the
terms of the agreement.
• Develop a list of information required to monitor each easement.
The information should be easy to duplicate so future city staff
can monitor the terms of the easement effectively and efficiently.
• Be certain that both parties have a very clear idea of the
transaction before they go forward. Written memoranda of
understanding with `all of the parties" roles and responsibilities
should be signed by all parties.
• Include the following clause in agreements: "The City does not
make assurances as to whether a particular land or easement
donation will be deductible, what monetary value of the gift the
IRS will accept, or what the resulting tax benefits of the
deduction will be."
• Be able to justify the price of acquisition or the price of an
easement.
Restricted and Unrestricted Title Donations
• Accept restricted or unrestricted title donations if there are few
costs associated with holding a title and the local tax base is not
• ( affected adverselyAre"'endously .
214
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Accept land donations if the property has conservation value
and an easement donation is not feasible for the landowner.
• Investigate all titles with which it may potentially deal. It is
important to verify that the City is in fact dealing with the legal
owner and become aware of any liens, mortgages, or other title
restrictions.
Estate planning
Use estate planning as an incentive for donations.
Land Exchange
Exchange land to raise funds for open space protection if the
transaction is not more effort than the potential revenue is worth.
3.1.2 Land registry program
Committee Findings
Landowners can register their property with a land conservation organization.
In doing so, they make a non-binding promise to be a steward of the land. The
land conservation organization then recognizes landowners with a plaque or
certificate, sometimes at a ceremony or public function. These events are
intensively publicized in local media.
Typically, registry managers are biologists or ecologists who can advise
landowners on land management. Registered landowners can consult free of
charge with a natural resource professional about their land. Landowners in a
registry program will generally inform the organization when they sell their
property, so the organization has a chance to acquire the property or contact the
next owners. Registry programs usually focus on a single natural resource or
location.
2247
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Fiscal Analysis
Costs involved with a registry program would include staff time for the program's
administration, landowner contact, planning events, plaques, and publicity.
Discussion
Registry programs acknowledge landowners who have protected (not
necessarily legally) their land and educate landowners and the public about
land conservation. Publicity also encourages other landowners to register their
land. The educational and promotional aspects of registry programs might
foster more support for the City's land conservation efforts. However, land in a
registry program is not legally or permanently protected.
The most efficient way to reach conservation and education goals
simultaneously may be to have a registry as a component of an easement
program, when residents put easements on their property they are invited to
register their land.
Parcels with development potential in Shorewood are small and residential in
character so an ecologist or other natural resource professional may not be
needed to advise landowners about land management. If registered
landowners are interested in learning about the natural communities on their
property, the City can refer them to a land conservation organization. This might
require an informal partnership or other working relationship with such an
organization. The City can also have on hand and distribute information about
the best management practices for the natural areas native to Shorewood.
Summary
Registry programs educate the public and raise awareness about land
conservation.
234
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Recommendation for Registry Program
Develop a registry program that is suited to the City's goals and
resources.
3.2 Assist residents' purchase of land for set-aside through
special assessment procedures
Committee Findinas
The Land Conservation Committee researched a special assessment
procedure that would loan money to residents to purchase open space in their
neighborhood. Such programs are rare but have been implemented in various
forms
Allmann (1997b) describes a "benefit assessment district" as a funding
mechanism which establishes a special assessment district to fund open space
acquisition. In this situation, the open space parcel is small in size and its
protection only benefits a small number of citizens. Local governments can sell
tax-exempt bonds or a sales or property tax is assessed in the district to pay for
the bond. A benefit assessment district is a funding mechanism not a
government unit. The following example of a benefit assessment district was
taken from "Doing Deals" by The Land Trust Alliance:
Citizens of Fairfield, California, successfully challenged the city's annexation
of three new subdivisions outside the town's jurisdictional boundary on the
grounds that the action would cause the "premature" conversion of open
space and agricultural land to urban uses. Under the resulting legal
settlement, the city created a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
(named after the legislators who developed the state enabling language),
composed of the new communities, as away of financing additional open
space acquisition. Each developed parcel is assessed an annual tax, which
is deductible from federal income taxes. The Fairfield settlement also
created the Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation, a land
trust, to direct the acquisition of open space with the proceeds of the parcel
tax. Although the parcel tax has raised only about $300,000, the foundation
244
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
has received additional monies from state and private sources in loans,
commitments, and grants. (page 148)
In Shorewood, open space acquisition assistance through special assessment
may be similar to special assessments for improvements. Neighbors that want
to purchase a parcel of undeveloped land in their neighborhood would first sign
a petition that requests t4at-the City fund the acquisition and then assess the
petitioners for the purchase price plus interest. Because this financing would be
a part of a land conservation program, petitioners would be required to put a
perpetual conservation easement on the property. The residents would have to
waive their right to a public hearing and appeal. The City Council would have
to pass a resolution accepting the petition, authorizing that an agreement be
drafted between the City and the petitioners, and identifying funds to be utilized.
The parcel would be purchased on the open market. In the future, toe.
petitioners can resell their parcels, but any revenue above the original purchase
price must be given to the City._
Petitioners may be required to form an incorporated neighborhood or other
association that can own property. Homeowners may have to make the
arrangements for the purchase and title changes. One of the petitioners would
be a contact person for dealing with the City, handling the closing, and
receiving the tax bills.
Fiscal Analysis
Open space parcels in the assistance program will vary in value, so the funding
source that will provide the purchase money may have to come from various
funds.
254
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
There are a number of issues involved with funding:
• How long will the term of the loan be? For how long will the petitioners be
assessed, 5„ 10, 15 years or longer?
• The City's cost of capital must be considered. What would the City charge
for interest on the loan? Would the interest be above market rates, if so how
much above market rates?
• What is the loss of potential tax revenue? How much of the tax base is the
City losing by not developing a parcel that has been set up for development,
i.e., has roads and sewer?
• If there were a conservation easement on the parcel, the tax revenue from
the lot would be minimal. In this case, should the acquired lot be tax
exempt?
• What is the impact on the rest of the City's programs to finance
neighborhood acquisition?
• Would there be a minimum or maximum amount for an assessment?
Discussion
Many questions need to be answered before a special assessment program is
feasible. If the City loans public money to neighbors to buy open space, there I
must be public benefit. Is there conservation value in a parcel that is
surrounded by development on all sides? Is a local neighborhood benefit such
as acquisition of one small parcel a benefit to the entire community?-ShGu44
be peFpetual?
Should development on the property be prohibited until the loan is paid back or
even longer? Should petitioners have the opportunity to sell the parcel for profit
in the future?
Private acquisition through special assessment will take parcels from the City's
tax base. However, any property that is acquired or protected by a conservation
2647 I
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
easement will be permanently taken off the tax base. The City invests public
money into property by building streets and setting up utilities, and if such
property is set aside as open space then the City is not getting paid back from
property taxes on that property. However, these investments are specially
assessed so the impact on revenue may be minimal.
The specifics of the purchase transaction are also an issue. Who would
purchase the property? Would the City buy the lot and then transfer it to the
petitioners, or would the City simply give the money to the petitioners to buy the
land?
Another difficulty with this program is multiple ownership. Would each party
own an equal partial interest? Can petitioners own the parcel even if they sell
their house in the neighborhood? Would a partial interest of the open space
• property become a part of the title of each petitioner? Should the City require
petitioners to form an association that can legally buy property?
Why should the City finance a loan when citizens can get a loan at a private
institution (and perhaps get a better interest rate)? Also, a bank can foreclose
on property within a year of defaulting on a loan, but it would take the City 4 to 5
I years to foreclose a property. In that 4 or 5 years the City would loese not only
the money that would have been paid back on the loan but also the potential tax
revenue from the lot.
A special assessment for open space acquisition may be an appropriate land
conservation tool if there is money available and public investment in the
property, in terms of roads, sewer, etc., has been minimal.
274.E
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Summary
Assuming that a conservation easement is put on the land, open space would
be protected in perpetuity to the extentd outlined in the easement agreement.
Recommendations for a Special Assessment Program
• Special assessments should be a low priority protection option,
but they should be employed when a group of neighbors want to
buy an open space parcel in their neighborhood and there is
financing available.
• Require a perpetual conservation easement on open space
property acquired through this program.lt should be agreed, ~
between the City and residents that the paFGel will
ment
T ain even space far the long therm, pFebaly Seri- ith an easement
a-greeFnen-t
• The City should, in writing, state that the City will not build a tot
lot on the acquired open space parcel.
• The City should require that petitioners form an association that
can legally own land.
• Policies and procedures regarding the use of City financing
should be established before any such use.
3.3 Special programs and designations
Local governments have established programs that compensate landowners for
voluntarily restricting development on their property.
3.3.1 Transfer of development rights program
Committee Findings
Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs allow landowners to sell their
development rights and local governments to protect open space without the
cost of fee title acquisition or b4y-conservation easement acquisitions. A local
government establishes a 'sending' and a 'receiving' area. Sending areas
2847-
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
have the protected resource. Landowners in the sending area can sell their
development rights, in the form of development credits, to developers who can
then exceed the allowable building density on property in the receiving area. If
development credits are sold, a conservation easement is put on the property in
the sending area. A land conservation organization or a local government can
hold the easement. The administering governmental agency approves or
disapproves credit transfers. The market determines the value of development
credits.
Fiscal Analysis
Costs associated with TDR programs include establishing the program and
managing the program in the long term. Staff time would be spent authorizing
and following development credit transactions. If easements are granted, would
sae-monitoring of the easements would be needed.
Discussion
For a TDR program to be successful there must a demand for development in
the receiving area, and residents in the receiving area must support increased
development in their community. TDR programs must also have community
support because private landowners and developers are potential program
participants.
TDR programs are an important conservation tool in developing communities
where one area has all or most of the protected resources.
Summary
TDR programs permanently protect open space (to the degree specified in
easement agreements) while compensating landowners who voluntarily restrict
development on their property.
294
Land Conservation Committee Report t
DRAFT 11/12/98
Recommendation for Transfer of Development Rights Program
I
Because land with development potential is scattered throughout
the city establishing a sending and receiving area would be
difficult, if not impossible. TDR programs are best suited for
agricultural areas that are undeveloped and are under pressure to
become residential areas. A TDR program would be neither
feasible nor desirable in Shorewood.
3.3.2 Purchase of development rights program
Committee Findings
In a purchase of development rights (PDR) program,. a local government buys
development rights from willing landowners. Landowners voluntarily restrict
development on their property by granting the local government a conservation
easement. In some cases, private organizations hold easements so future
Councils cannot ignore or annul the easements. The local government .
compensates the landowner for the easement's value. The value is determined
by an appraiser hired by local governments. PDR programs are voluntary.
PDR programs typically have ',a systematic way of deciding which parcels
should be protected. To be considered for the program, property and the terms
of a proposed easement agreement must meet a list of locally defined criteria.
PDR programs frequently focus on one resource, i.e., protecting water
resources or a geographic area, so every program has a unique set of criteria.
The City of Boulder, Colorado, has an informal application process and areas
of interest have been predetermined and mapped. When the city's PDR
program began in 1967, it had a formal application process, but because the
process was too bureaucratic the city simplified the process. In the new
application process, the city makes personal contact with interested
landowners.
3047
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
I In 1997, the Minnesota Legislature modified municipalities" permitted land use
control to allow PDR programs (Altmann 1997b, Green Corridor Project 1998).
PDR programs have been funded by bond referenda or special tax
assessments (Altmann 1997). Financing of a PDR program could also come
from general funds, real-estate transfer taxes, or grants from state and federal
programs (Green Corridor Project 1998). The City of Boulder funds its PDR
program with state grants and city sales taxes.
The Green Corridor Project (1998) listed five ways that local governments can
pay landowners: one lump sum, installment payments with interest, bargain
sale (landowner donates what the government cannot afford and takes an
income tax deduction), and like kind exchanges for other property. The fifth
payment option is a "securitized installment purchase agreement" and is
described as follows:
...[T]he easement contract operates like a municipal bond. The
landowner receives tax-exempt interest payments each year over the life
of the contract with principal paid at the end of the contract. The
landowner defers capital gains until the principal is paid and he or she
sells the contract like a bond. Some principal may be paid at settlement
with the remainder paid at the end of the contract. (Green Corridor
Project 1998, page 70)
The number of payment options should be seen as an advantage to using PDR
programs to protect natural areas.
The administration of a PDR program involves an advisory board that reviews
applications and locates parcels with significant natural resources. The
administering government also contacts landowners who have a resource that
is important to the community. Elected officials and landowners usually sit on
advisory boards. The City of Boulder administers a PDR program with its nine
elected council members and an Open Space Board of Trustees which is made
up of five members appointed by the city council.
3147
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
"Protecting Your Community's Natural Resources: A Land Protection Toolbox
for Local Government" outlines nine staff responsibilities associated with PDR
programs (Green Corridor Project, 1998, page 71). These staff responsibilities
include:
• support for the advisory board and elected officials;
• program promotion;
• drafting easements;
• publishing reports and newsletters about the PDR program;
• real estate transfer duties;
• recording conservation easements;
• preparation of baseline data reports;
easement monitoring and management (site visits, preparation of
monitoring reports, educating subsequent landowners, notification of
violations, enforcement of easement terms); and
• managing easement funds.
Fiscal Analysis
The largest cost of a PDR program is buying development rights. The expense
of staff time administering the program would be a continuous long-term cost_
Discussion
Community backing is essential for the success of a PDR program because
public funds finance the program. Consensus among elected officials and
language supporting the program in the Comprehensive Plan is also important.
A PDR program could require or encourage landowners to donate a part of the
easement value. The donation would allow landowners to take a income tax
deduction. Besides deductions from donations, there are no tax benefits for
324
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
landowners in PDR programs. Payment to landowners participating in PDR
programs is subject to capital gains taxes (and income taxes?).
A PDR program will not protect resources without monitoring and enforcing the
terms of the easement agreement. Volunteers could help staff monitor
easements. Volunteers are not a reliable long term solution for monitoring
requirements''ues, however volunteer help gets people involved in and
excited about land conservation. By being involved in the process, volunteers
learn about open space protection. In sum, citizen involvement generates
community support for programs and helps to meet public education goals.
PDR programs are a flexible conservation tool. Each community develops their
own PDR program. Communities tailor programs to meet their needs. Means of
compensating landowners are also flexible.
•
Summary
PDR programs permanently protect open space (to the degree that easement
agreements require), however the City must purchase conservation easements
and dedicate staff time to program administration.
I Recommendations for Purchase of Development Rights Program
• Support for a PDR program among the Council, Commissioners,
and citizens should be evaluated before the City commits to a
program.
• If the City secures a stable funding mechanism, a PDR program
would be a feasible and desirable land conservation tool in
Shorewood.
• The Comprehensive Plan should be amended to support the
PDR program.
• Maintaining community support for the program should be an on-
going effort.
334
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Staff should perform the above mentioned staff duties on a
10 continual long-term basis.
• The PDR program should be applied in a situation where the
City cannot afford to purchase an open space parcel outright or
the landowner wishes to retain ownership.
• The Council, Commissioners, and citizens should develop a list
of criteria to evaluate the suitability of parcels for the program.
Criteria should reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and
the Open Space Plan.
• Initial parcel evaluation could be in the form of an application
submitted to the City.
• Because appraisals are expensive, minimum requirements, e.g.,
acreage and cost, should be established so only parcels worth
considering for the program are appraised.
• Criteria should be used to prioritize parcels to be eligible forte
the PDR program.
• Program evaluation should be once a year.
• In order to avoid conflicts with landowners, potential program
participants must be made aware that they will receive no tax
• benefits from the program.
3.4 Outright purchase
Committee Findings
This section describes the administration and funding of open space acquisition
by local governments. A "fee simple acquisition," or outright purchase, gives
local government control of property. As landowners local governments can
control future land use. Minnesota Statute 415.01 establishes the authority of
Minnesota cities to acquire land for public purposes.
Nonprofit land conservation organizations can help local governments with
acquisition. For instance, the City of Maplewood used the Land Conservation
Bank to handle its acquisition transactions. Also if a landowner does not want
344
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
I to deal with a government agency,, a private organization can negotiate and
acquire property. The private organization would subsequently sell the property
to the local government. In situations where there is immediate threat of
I development., a nonprofit organization can raise money to acquire the land
quickly and later sell it to a local government once the local government has the
funds.
If a seller is willing, a local government can arrange a payment schedule that +s
matchesfitt its resources. Payment can be in the form of a lump sum or
installment payments. Transactions other than a straight forward cash payment
include: 1 bargain sales, in which the landowner donates part of the land;-and
3 land exchanges, w ee-a municipality and landowner trade land and the
landowner does not pay taxes on the transfer.
• I Fiscal Analysis
The expense of outright purchase can be out of the reach of city resources.
However, the Scenic and Natural Areas Grant Program (see Appendix G),
administered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, provides
local governments with matching funds to acquire open space. Other funding
sources include corporations, foundations, and private individuals.
A dedicated fund can also be established to finance open space acquisition.
Funds in a special account are designated for open space and are separate
from other funds in the operating budget. Funds for this account can be
generated Iy# increasing property taxes, from grants, or through fees
associated with development ordinances, e.g., in new developments deals,
developers paying the local government with cash instead of dedicating land for
open space. Other taxing mechanisms used to create revenue are real-estate
transfer taxes or dedicated sales taxes. Local governments can also issue
certificates of participation to fund open space or use general funds
f 354-7-
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Another funding mechanism, a lease-purchase arrangement, is described in
"Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital Community Asset." The handbook provides
the example of a county board not wanting to use a referendum to raise money
for acquisition, but which by itselft#e-bear4 cannot legally obligate future boards I
with debt.
An acquisition using general funds may in some cases be structured as a
lease-purchase, a financing arrangement which does not require voter
approval. For example, Washington County has entered into a lease-
purchase agreement to acquire a 570 acre parcel of land in the St. Croix
Valley for a regional park....According to the agreement, the county
would first acquire a 208 acre parcel outright for $1,128,158. The
remaining 371 acres would be subject to a lease-purchase agreement.
An initial lease payment of $137,772 was made, to be followed by ten
annual lease payments of $500,000, after which the county would take
ownership of the property. The arrangement honors state law, in that it
does not legally obligate a future board. If it wished, a future board could
break the lease agreement, although doing so would be to forfeit any
monies paid out in lease payments to that point. (Altmann 1997b, page
64)
In this example the county is not buying the land for a price that reflects the
land's highest and best use. Fortunately, the sellers were willing to enter into
the agreement because they wanted the property to remain open space.
Another open space acquisition funding mechanism is for local governments to
issue bonds. In other municipalities bond debt has been paid with general
funds, property tax increases, fees for open space use, and a combination of
these. "Revenue bonds" are secured by earnings from a government
enterprise, e.g., municipal water. Revenue bonds are not commonly used for
open space acquisition because the revenue generated from open space, e.g.,
user fees, is typically insufficient. "Revenue Anticipation Bonds" have been
used if open space is under immediate threat of development (Altmann 1997b).
This type of bond is secured by funding that is not currently accessible but I
is anticipated. General obligation (GO) bonds are frequently used to fund open
364
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
space acquisition. GO bonds are approved by voters and are typically paid with
property tax increases or general funds.
GO bonds must be approved by voters in a referendum. The Trust for Public
Land has outlined the financial, administrative, and educational activities that
are essential for a successful bond referendum. The process entails nine
factors: a committee to administer the process, fundraising for research and
polling, research and polling, measure development, endorsements, media,
direct mail, and other voter contact (Appendix M). The tax impact of 10-year,
15-year, and 20-year bonds of $1,000,000 issued by the City of Shorewood is
presented in Table 3. (See Appendix D for more details.)-
Table 3. The estimated tax impacts of a $1,000,000 bond issued by the City of
Shorewood.
Market Value 10-Year Bond 15-Year Bond 20-Year Bond
. of Home Annual Tax Impact Annual Tax Impact Annual Tax Impact
$100,000 $24.32 $19.76 $16.72
$200,000 $48.65 $39.53 $33.45
$500,000 $121.62 $98.82 $83.62
$1,000,000 $243.25 $197.64 $167.23
I
Results of open space referenda in Twin Cities Metro Area communities are
listed in Table 43. Each community's experience has been unique.
Table 44. Open space referenda in the Twin Cities metro area.
Community Year Referenda Outcome
Maplewood 1993 Approved $5,000,000 bond
Eden Prairie 1994 Approved $1,950,000 bond
Plymouth 1995 Approved $3,200,000 bond
Eagan 1996 Rejected $3,800,000 bond
Woodbury 1997 Approved $5,000,000 bond
! 3747
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Woodbury
Some referenda begin at the grassroots level. For instance, Woodbury's open
space referendum was initiated by neighbors who were upset by development
proposed for their community. The city established an Open Space Committee
and hired consultants to do a detailed biological inventory of the city. The
committee used the inventory to identify and rank important open space parcels.
The city then surveyed residents to find out specifically if and how much
residents would pay for open space acquisition. Woodbury's referendum
committee did mailings, posted signs, and had articles in local papers to inform
the public about the referendum.
Maplewood
Residents petitioned the city of Maplewood to buy a parcel for open space when
the owner offered to sell it to the city. Residents were concerned that it would
eventually be sold for development. At the same time, the city was petitioned by
another group of residents for a similar reason. The mayor formed a committee
of twelve citizens to research the remaining open space in Maplewood.
Volunteers helped the committee with community meetings and passing out
flyers to inform residents of the open space referendum. The referendum
passed by 54%. Maplewood residents will pay $24 per year per household for I
20 years to pay for open space acquisition in their community.
Eagan
Eagan's Open Space Taskforce recommended that a special election be held
for a referendum before regular elections. The rationale was that if only one
issue was on the ballot the referendum would attract more public interest. The
city council did not follow the recommendation because it would have cost
approximately $30,000.
384-7-
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Sixty-eight percent of Eagan voters rejected the open space bond referendum.
In a St. Paul Pioneer Press article (September 11, 1996), Tom Egan, Eagan
Mayor, thought that the measure failed because the acquisition program
objectives were not clearly communicated. In the article, the Mayor was quoted
as saying:
It appears the voters want us to be more precise rather than to make a
selection out of 20 [parcels]. We have to decide if the price was too high.
And it may have been that people were concerned whether there would
be a future referendum to develop these sites once we acquire them.
Maybe it will be better to put the whole package on the table in one bond
referendum.
For taxpayers, the referendum would have meant additional property taxes of
$17 per year for 16 years on a $120,000 home.
Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie's open space referendum was initiated by the Eden Prairie Land
Trust and the city's Parks Department when a proposed development was
approved by the council on a parcel with high quality Big Woods. Citizens
petitioned the city council to stop the 40-acre maple-basswood forest from being
developed. In response, a 13 member Natural Resource Study Committee,
appointed by the City Council, inventoried and mapped the remaining parcels
with development potential in the city. Eden Prairie hired a consulting firm to
evaluate and rank the rarity of the natural communities on the most important
sites.
Before the referendum, the city secured options on more parcels than it knew it
could buy, so that if the referendum was successful owners of identified priority
parcels could not raise their prices. The referendum passed by 83%. After the
referendum, the city triggered the options and within three months the city
owned the property. Eden Prairie also used grant money to acquired a large
• parcel with high quality natural areas.
394
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
•
Plymouth
The City of Plymouth also studied its remaining open space parcels before
going to referendum. Its open space referendum was passed by 85%, 11 % of
registered voters voting. The funds were used to purchase maple-basswood
forests, cattail marshes, and tamarack swamps. Taxes in Plymouth did not I
increase because the bond issued replaced a previously issued bond.
Subsequently, tax payers gave up a property tax reduction of $8.31 on a house
valued at $150,000 (Star Tribune, May 24, 1995). Due to revenue generated
by the referendum, construction of previously planned hiking and biking trails
began five years earlier than had been planned.
Edina
The City of Edina passed a bond referendum for parks improvement. It was a
two year process. The Parks Director held 20-30 neighborhood meetings over
a 2-3 month period. The city sent neighborhood associations and groups
meeting announcements, and many people came to the meetings. At the
meetings, residents listed what the narks needed. City staff then developed a
list of projects to undertake. The referendum was held in May, not November.
Discussion
Private nonprofit organizations have been successfully used as negotiators and
to carry out transactions for local governments. They also advise municipalities
on referenda, landowner contact, and negotiations. Private organizations are a
good alternative if landowners are willing to sell or donate their land but do not
want to deal with a governmental agency.
Land acquisition should be a part of a well thought out, long-term land
protection program, i.e., the Open Space Plan. If land is acquired in an
404: I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• unplanned manner there may be future political and fiscal difficulty with plan
implementation. The vision and objectives of the plan should be clearly
defined, and citizens should be a part of identifying the resources.that are
valued in the community. One main point to be communicatediG~q to the public
about a land acquisition program is that the program is voluntary. Another
important message is the specific how's, when's, where's, and why's of the
acquisition program.
Conflicts with landowners near city-owned open space should be prevented by
informing residents of ownership.
Funding
There are many options for funding acquisition and compensating willing
landowners, and Shorewood can learn from the experiences of other cities.
• Woodbury's experience illustrates the importance of grassroots support and
polling citizens before holding a referendum. The survey results indicated that
Woodbury residents were in favor of the referendum 3:1, and the measure
passed by a 3:1 margin (Bob Klat, City of Woodbury, personal communication).
Eden Prairie's experience also points to the importance of grassroots support
and community participation in the process. Securing options before a
referendum may be a good strategy for avoiding soaring land prices. The
significance of informing the public and the timing of the referendum is shown
with the success of Edina's referendum. The support and ultimate success of
the open space referendum in Maplewood was primarily due to committed
citizens (Bruce Anderson, City of Maplewood Parks Director). Maplewood's
experience also illustrates the positive effects of community involvement and
support.
Lessons should be learned from Eagan's experience. While holding a special
• I election, is expensive it may be advantageous in getting citizens' attention.
414
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Clearly getting the message out is also important. Voters should know the
what's, why's, how's, and when's of a proposed land acquisition program. In
the case the City of Eagan, open space parcels were not prioritized and the
vision of the acquisition program was not well defined or communicated to
citizens.
Eden Prairie decided not to ask for more than $2,000,000 in a referendum
because they were uncertain of community support for open space acquisition.
Bob Lambert, Eden Prairie Parks Director, indicated that, with hindsight, the city
should have proposed a measure higher than $2,000,000. He also
recommended consulting with the Trust for Public Land (TPL) for advicse on the I
referendum process. However, he does not recommend acquiring land through
the TPL because TPL buys the land at a bargain price, holds on to it until the
local government has the funds for acquisition, then sells it to the local
government at fair market value. Mr. Lambert pointed out that TPL would be
helpful if a city were to use general funds for open space acquisition, then the
city could pay TPL for the land over a number of years.
If a bond referendum is necessary, the Land Conservation Committee proposes
that the community is surveyed to assess the willingness to be additionally
taxed to support open space protection.
Summary
Outright acquisition allows the City to determine the current and future
management of open space. However, acquiring land does not mean it is
permanently protected. Land is only protected in perpetuity if it is protected
legally.
•
424
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Recommendations for Outright Purchase
• Public education and promotion +sare needed to convey the
central points of the program to potential donors and sellers.
• Open space parcels should be prioritized by citizens.
• City owned open space should have signage indicating
ownership to avoid conflicts with landowners.
• Send letters every 5 years to landowners near city-owned open
space to remind them of ownership.
• Apply for a Scenic and Natural Areas Grant for matching funds
for acquisition.
• Apply for a Conservation Partners Grant for funding ecological
restoration projects on city-owned open space.
• As land is tax forfeited, the City should consider it for purchase.
• The City should develop a positive working relationship with
landowners who are considering selling their land to be certain
that the best payment method, for both parties, is chosen.
• Land acquisition would be a good land protection option if
residents do not want the City to spend public funds for open
space protection that does not require public access.
• The City should form partnerships with non-profit private land
conservation organizations, e.g., The Minnesota Land Trust or
The Nature Conservancy, to accommodate landowners who
prefer to negotiate with a non-profit private organization.
• The Open Space Plan should identify funding sources, staffing
responsibilities, and long-term land management for an
acquisition program.
• If a referendum is required, an educational campaign would be
necessary to make voters aware of the issues. Voters should
have a clear understanding that their taxes might go up and that
not every open space parcel in every neighborhood will be
purchased.
• If a referendum is required, citizens should be surveyed to
assess community support for publicly funding open space
acquisition.
• A combination of funding mechanisms may be the best solution
to financing issues.
I
•
4347-
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• 3.5 Regulatory Controls
Regulatory controls were not researched as a protection tool because they are
not appropriate in Shorewood. Regulatory controls are generally city
ordinances that restrict land use in specified areas. Some examples of these
restrictions are performance zoning, urban growth boundaries, preservation
overlay zones, conservation districts and enforcement of specific best
management practices. Regulatory controls were also not studied because of
its associated `takings issue' and the City's respect for landowner rights.
Conservation over-lay zoning, such as Shorewood's Shoreland zoning, is a
regulatory tool municipalities have used to preserve a city's natural or historic
character. The Committee did not consider conservation zoning because
almost 90% of Shorewood has been developed and the remaining land with
development potential is scattered across the City.
In some communities, subdivision zoning requires that large blocks of land are
set aside for permanent open space. The set aside land is sometimes owned
by homeowners associations, land trusts, or local government. Cluster
development is not addressed in this report because the City Council has
already discussed this option.
3.6 Choosing a conservation method
The City must select and implement land protection tools consistently. If
protection tools are applied haphazardly the City's motives will be questioned.
However, flexibility in the City's open space protection policies will make it
easier to choose appropriate options. There are many factors to consider when
deciding which conservation option or combination of options to use. To do so,
is the City must ask the following questions:
444
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• • What are the property's conservation values?
• What use of the property is most compatible with its conservation values?
• How does the community wish to see the property used?
• What options is the landowner willing to consider?
• What type of stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring responsibilities
is the City willing to accept?
• How much money is available for the property's protection?
• Can the land be protected in perpetuity?
(Land Trust Alliance 1998)
A balance must be struck among all of these considerations. The community's
vision of open space should help to answer these questions; ,(see Section 41.
The City should be able to refer to the Open Space Plan as a document that
reflects the community's values and its vision and goals for open space in
Shorewood. For a simplified guide of conservation options see Appendix N,
Conservation Tools and Strategies; in this table landowner goals are generic
for the sake of illustration.
The property must be examined to ensure that an appropriate transaction can
be chosen. A site inspection will allow one to see if the property meets the
City's criteria for protection and any potential liabilities or management
problems. In the case of a potential acquisition, the City should look for any
hazardous or toxic materials on the property. Property boundaries should be
recorded and described with legal land descriptions. If there are problems or
potential problems on the site, the City should correct the problem, or before it
takes action the City should decide if protecting the open space is worthwhile
despite the problem.
The City also should make another decision for each parcel. Legal land
protection is an important first step to protecting the natural environmental
character of Shorewood. However, to assure that open space remains natural,
• the City should assess the restoration potential of acquired sites. If there is
454
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• reasonable restoration potential, the City should utilize state financial and
technical assistance to restore the site's natural community(s).
•
•
464
i
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
4.0 Implementation: Action Plan and Timeline
This section recommends a process to follow to prioritize and protect open
space in Shorewood. The previous sections established a base of information
from which the process can be developed. The process is a planning process
that will develop the Open Space Plan. This report represents the beginning of
that process, and the report should be refined to ultimately become
Shorewood's Open Space Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should eventually
be amended to be consistent with the vision, goals, and objectives of the Open
Space Plan. The Land Conservation Committee (LCC) strongly recommends
that citizens have opportunities to contribute meaningful input in the planning
and implementation of the Open Space Plan.
I lR this seGtiGR +The LCC suggests a number of steps and a timetable to further
develop the Open Space Plan. A visioning session will be necessary to ensure
• that the Plan reflects the community's opeR spat values are FepreseRted iR the
Ptlat4. A working group will be established w#is#that may consist of Planning
and Park Commissioners and citizens. Open space parcels in Shorewood will
be prioritized for protection. The planning process also will fequ4es-identify+n-g
funding sources for open space protection
Additionally. Section 4 apse-outlines steps to be taken to implement the Plan
(see Figurel . Implementation includes promoting the Plan, executing
- protection tools, evaluating the Plan, and educating officials and residents
about Shorewood's natural resources and the land protection options available
to local governments and private individuals.
I The planning process and proposed Open Space Plan are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. This is clearly illustrated by the Natural Resource
Objective "[w]here feasible, preservation of natural open space areas shall be
• achieved through conservation easements, acquisition, or development
474
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• regulation" (NR-3). Also, one of the City's Natural Resource Policies is_#;at r
"[c]onservation easements and similar methods of preserving open space shall
be pursued to ensure that such areas remain in open space indefinitely" (NR-8).
Language for open space protection has also been proposed for the Land Use
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, see Appendix O.
Most likely, the Open Space Plan will include some of the land protection
options pFeviewsly described in this report, and the protection options will be in
the form of programs. For example, these programs might include a purchase I
of development rights program, land registry program, and land and
conservation easement acquisition program. The programs differ in the amount
of administration that is required for implementation. On a relative scale, easily
administered programs are #;e-registry programs and tie-land and easement
donation programs (acquiring title and easement donations). T4&-IA program
that is moderately difficult to administer is the special assessment for open
space acquisition program. Difficult to administer programs are #4e-purchase of
development rights programs and #4e-land and conservation easement
acquisition (via purchase) programs.
An action plan is outlined below. Each step is described in subsequent
sections. The planning steps are sequential one step leads to the next.
However, education included in Plan Implementation, is a step that has already
begun and will be on-going throughout hroughout the planning process and Plan
implementation The other steps in Plan implementation promotion implement
protection options Plan evaluation and continuing long-term programs are also
continual but must be preceded by the planning process.
•
484
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Figure 1. Open Space Plan development and implementation.
Land Conservation Committee Established
Education
Land Conservation Committee Dissolves
Planning Process
Commit to Process
Determine Plan Administration
Develop Community Vision
Develop Criteria
Create Working Group(s)
Identify Priority Parcels
Develop Protection Strategy
• Finalize Plan
Plan Implementation
Promote Plan As needed:
Educate Residents • Land Registry
4 Program
Implement Protection Options • Easement and Title
Donations
Evaluation Evaluate Plan . Special Assessment
On-going Progrm
I I Long-term Programs:
V/ • Land Acquisition Program
• Purchase of Development
Rights Program
•
494.7
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Suggestions for the Planning Process
• Evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken during the planning process, and
if things are not progressing well then modi a4aig-jhe action plan.
• Staff and other facilitators should continually ask the citizens participating in
the process if they think things are on track.
• Keep decision makers in the loop throughout the entire planning process.
• Establish a common community vision of open space and build support for I
the Open Space Plan in the community.
• The community's vision for open space should be kepttep in mind during
plan development and implementation.
4.1 Planning Process
The first seven steps refine the Open Space Plan., so #the Plan can be I
implemented.
•
Step 1 - Approve Report and Commit to Planning Process
The first step in the planning process is to approve the LCC's report and
consider its recommendations. The City's commitment to the planning process
is needed to further develop the Plan. This commitment may be in the form of a
written pledge to carry out the planning process.
Step 2 - Determine Plan Administration
There are many ways the Open Space Plan can be administered. In this report,
the future administering body will be referred to as a `working group.' The City
504-7
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
may decide that more than one working group is needed and/or that one
working group will be permanent and another will be temporary.
Once the Open Space Plan is finalized, the ease of administering the Plan will
I depend on the land conservation options that the City has chosendesides to
implement. The land protection programs, e.g., land registry or purchase of
development rights program, will be administered by City staff and the working
group. Each option will have a different set of tasks required for
implementation.
Easily administered
Land registry and title and conservation easement donations.
Tasks required on a consistent and on-going basis:
• Promotion - publicize programs, organize public ceremonies/events,
develop and produce brochures
. • Education - organize public meetings, develop and produce brochures,
write articles for newsletter and local newspapers, consult one-on-one
with interested landowners
• Other - develop a -plaque or other means of recognition
• Develop criteria for accepting land and easement donations
Moderately difficult to administer
Special assessment for residents' open space acquisition program
Tasks required as needed, except developing criteria:
• Develop criteria for program eligibility
• Approve applications for program
• Negotiate assessment terms with petitioners
• Negotiate easement terms with petitioners
• Estimate and implement assessment
• Secure funding
5147
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Difficult to administer
Purchase of development rights program and land a,^~',-oors° ~easeneRt
acquisition program.
Tasks required intensively at first and then as needed:
• Develop criteria for site selection
• Rank parcels
• Review program applications and select eligible parcels for programs
• Contact owners of high priority parcels
• Negotiate acquisition and easement terms
• Monitor and enforce easement terms
• Secure funding
• Manage and maintain acquired open space
• Promotion - publicize program and develop and produce brochures
• Education - organize public meetings, develop and produce brochures,
write articles for newsletter and local newspapers, consult one-on-one
with interested landowners
The framework of the Plan's administration will be one of the first steps to take in
the planning process. The administering body's purpose, tasks, makeup and
procedures will be ultimately determined by the City Council with input from the
Park and Planning Commissions.-
The citizen members of the working group may be selected from the people
who attend the visioning session, see Step 3.
As seen above, the working group will have varied tasks. The working group
will educate residents about land protection options on a continual
basis. The group will also collect data that is necessary for prioritizing open
space parcels. Once the protection options have been selected, the working
group will formulate a protection strategy. This strategy will describe how
parcels will be protected and address relevant funding and legal issues. The
524
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
working group will also finalize the Open Space Plan, so it can be added to the
Comprehensive Plan.
During Plan implementation, the working group will promote the Open Space
Plan and carry out the protection options. On a regular basis, the group will
evaluate the Open Space Plan's effectiveness based on how and if the Plan's
goals and objectives are being met. If the group is established as a permanent
body, the working group will manage the long-term programs. Otherwise, the
Council will decide how the long-term programs will be administered.
The planning process and the Open Space Plan can be administered in a
number of ways. One
eveRtuon„ the Dlon s for Park and Planning Commissioners to participate in a
working group dedicated to researching and making recommendations about
open space protection. Alternately, the City could establish an expanded LCC
consisting of one member from each cCommission and additional citizens.
• Another option is for the Park Commission to become the Park and Open Space
Commission and administer the Open Space Plan. In this situation, a
temporary citizen committee could be involved in the planning process.
Additionally, the current LCC could continue to develop and implement a land
I protection strategy and a separate committee, made up of commissioners and
citizens, would develop the community's vision for open space and create a list
of criteria for prioritizing open space parcels. Because education is an on-going
need it may be logical to have a working group separate from the administering
body and dedicated only to education.
The City Council and the Park and Planning Commissions have experience
with defining the roles of government officials, so the LCC suggests that they
recommend aPA-the Planning and Park Commissioner's' roles- in
administering the Open Space Plan.
5347-
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
As illustrated above, citizens can be involved in planning and implementation in
a number of ways. Most importantly, citizens can identify the community's
values. See Steps 3 and 4 for details.
Recommendations for Plan Administration
a reln of the Planning and PaFk GGmmissienc should be
determined by the Commissions and the City CounrAl.
• The working group(s) should have citizen representation.
• Citizens should have meaningful input:
1. When the community develops a vision of open space in
Shorewood
2. When criteria for selecting and ranking open space parcels is
developed and when open space parcels are prioritized
3. In budgeting for acquisition of development rights or
purchase of property.,
I
• If a number of citizens are interested in participating, a simple
volunteer information sheet should be developed to find out
what people like to do and what skills they have to offer.
• People with a broad range of interests and from all precincts
should be encouraged to actively participate in the process.
• Involve people of various ages, ethnicities, classes, and abilities
to participate.
• The role of the Planning and Park Commissions should be
determined by the Commissions and the City Council.
Establishing a nonprofit land conservation organization
The City Council requested thata-,k-e4 the LCC te-investigate the possibilities of
1.) assisting a nonprofit land conservation group to become established-, or 2.)
using an existing nonprofit organization to be responsible for acquisition,
control, and maintenance of land set-aside for open space. Private land
conservation organizations usually have focused protection goals, e.g., a
watershed or a natural community. Establishing a new nonprofit land
conservation organization (LCO) would entail extensive paperwork, and
544
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12198
running an LCO takes much time and energy. An LCO requires a board of
directors, needs the help of volunteers, and may require a staff. Using an
existing nonprofit organization for land conservation would require a
partnership or other working relationship between the City and an LCO.
Board members are legally responsible for the LCO and should be active in the
organization. The board of directors meets regularly to perform its
responsibilities. Ideally, the board's membership reflects the broad interests of
the community. As public charities, LCOs are legally responsible for the gifts
and funds they receive from the public. The public can legally challenge an
LCO on its financial dealings. The Land Trust Alliance recommends that even
small land trusts keep careful records, develop annual budgets and financial
reports. It is likely that LCOs will be audited if they spend more than a couple of
thousand dollars in a year (Land Trust Alliance 1998). Again, the board of
directors is responsible for the organization's financial management. LCOs
might also require liability and property insurance.-
Maintaining nonprofit and tax-exempt status requires tedious paperwork. This
includes preparing and filing articles of incorporation and bylaws. Tax-exempt
status must also be filed for with federal and state governments, and tax-exempt
status must be retained over time. LCOs must make certain that they meet IRS
requirements for a public charity. All of these procedures should be done by an
attorney experienced with nonprofits. LCOs have additional responsibilities
such as preparing annual budget reports, filing 6tate registrati"^ with the
attGFRey general, filing federal 990 tax returns, and complying with state
charitable solicitation laws.
LCOs commit to monitoring easements on a regular basis in perpetuity. They
would lose credibility in the community if easement terms are broken and no
I action is taken. Most LCOs would secure along-term funding for easement
554
I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
monitoring and enforcement must be . Also, LCOs nutshould have an
agreement with another organization to take over their responsibilities in the
event that they cannot continue to monitor their easement agreements. LCOs
must also manage the land that they control. They must make certain that the
land is safe, i.e., there are no physical hazards to people, and that its natural
resources are protected.
In Shorewood. Tthe amount of time and resources required to establish such an
organization is tremendous relative to the amount of lap Aooen space to
protect and the financial resources available to protect it. ' A land
conservation organization should be a stable organization, able to manage
land, and enforce easement terms. The City is a more secure organization than
a small volunteer-based land conservation organization for which future
community support is uncertain. Therefore, the City should manage the
programs that protect land in Shorewood and the City could accept easements.
The City could easily monitor easement terms, among other methods, when
landowners apply for building or other permits;
The City can partner with a private land conservation organization. LCOs may
be better equipped to protect natural resources than the City could because
they have a better understanding of natural areas and the laws and regulations
of conservation tools. If the City cannot afford the cost of acquiring a parcel or
purchasing an easement, a private organization may be able to quickly secure
the resources to do so. A private organization may also be interested in a land
exchange to raise money to protect property that has conservation value. If a
partnership were established, the City would be able to refer landowners to the
LCO if they do not wish to deal with the City.
Establishing a partnership with an existing LCO might lessen the City's
management burden, but the City would still have some responsibilities. City
staff might be required to contact landowners. If the City worked with an LCO, it
564
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
may not have to dedicate staff time maintaining property and monitoring and
enforcing easements.
Establishing a new nonprofit land conservation organization is not a desirable
option because of the expense and administration that would be involved. The
tremendous amount of paperwork and the uncertainty of volunteer labor also
makes this a weak alternative. Partnering with an existing land conservation
organization would be less work for the City and would achieve the same
conservation goals. If needed, the City could work with more than one LCO. If a
I protected parcel required active management, the City could work with The
Nature Conservancy, or if the land was on the market and the City did not have
cash on hand for acquisition, it could work with the Minnesota Land Trust or the
Trust for Public Land.
Recommendations for Establishing a Land Conservation
Organization
• • The City should be the agency that holds conservation
easements and land titles.
• If an important natural resource is identified and requires active
management, the City should incorporate natural resource
professionals in the planning and implementation process.
• The City should not establish a new nonprofit land conservation
organization for protecting sand in Shorewood.
• The City should partner with an existing land conservation
organization if the following circumstances arise: a quick salee-,
a parcel that requires intensive management, and landowners
that do not want to deal with the City.
574
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Step 3 - Develop Community Vision for Open Space and Develop
Criteria for Prioritizing Parcels
Community vision for open space
Because the LCC only has three Shorewood citizens, the community's role will
be essentially to verify that the LCC's recommendations are consistent with
the community's values. Pit i° GFitiGal to the N''^^that there is-public
involvement to identify community values early on
Unity value is critical to the process. The Open Space Plan's goals and
objectives should reflect the community's vision of land protection in
Shorewood. For the plan to be effective, the values behind why open space is
important to the community must not only be identified but must also be agreed
upon by citizens. The LCC recognizes that community involvement and self-
evaluation during the process will make the planning process run smoothly.
Local support and awareness of the Open Space Plan is important to the
success of the plaRRiRg PFGGess a Plan implementation. When citizens
volunteer and get involved they will learn about land conservation. Involved
citizens will also spread the word about the City's land conservation efforts. It is
essential to incorporate the ideas of citizens into the Open Space Plan because
the protection options are voluntary. if Shorewood residents' concerns are not
addressed, the plan will fail because of a lack of participation. See Appendix
P for ways to facilitate community involvement in the planning process. I
Shorewood's Park and Trail Planning Process took a grass-roots approach-imR
A consultant was hired to facilitate citizen input. Input
was in the form of a community visioning session, a phone survey, and the
appointment of a Citizen Review Group. These activities were coordinated by
the Park Commission. This way of getting citizen input seemed to successfully
identify the communities' values and the issues that afeare important to
Shorewood residents.
5847
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
The LCC suggests a vision, goal, and objectives for the Open Space Plan. The
vision, goal, and objectives may be modified, added to, or completely rewritten
as seen fit by City officials and Shorewood residents that participate in the
visioning session. The suggested vision, goal, and objectives can be used as a
starting point for the visioning session. After being presented with the vision,
goal, and objectives, citizens could respond with approval, disapproval, or
neutrality.
Possible Vision for the Open Space Plan
It is important that we maintain the unique natural environment of Shorewood
for future generations. Shorewood will remain an attractive community in which
to live and recreate through an organized effort that encourages setting aside
open space.
Possible Goal for the Open Space Plan
The City of Shorewood is more than 90% developed, and there is growing
pressure to build on the remaining undeveloped land. In order to balance this
economic pressure with the desire to protect open space, the City of
Shorewood will work with citizens and nonprofit land conservation
organizations to protect open space in conjunction with the City's existing
wetland and shoreland ordinances. The Open Space Plan will be implemented
in a way that respects landowner rights.
Possible Objectives for the Open Space Plan
• Educate City Council members and Shorewood residents about land
protection options with community meetings, newsletter articles, and
other communication mechanisms.
• Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include: a.) priority sites ranked with
• input from citizens; b.) measurable objectives, such as half of the land
5 9?7-
1
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
protected will be upland forest; and, c.) any other issues identified in the
Open Space Plan.
• Permanently protect one hundred acres of natural open space in
Shorewood by 2001 (approximately one third of the undeveloped land in
Shorewood').
Criteria for prioritizing parcels
electing _parcels eligible for a land or easement acquisition
program should be given careful consideration to avoid protecting areas that
are not compatible with the objectives of the Open Space Plan. If the City
protects parcels that do not seem to have conservation value, as defined by the I
community, the public may perceive that the City does not care about public
interests or values. In this situation, the City will be criticized and the Open
Space Plan's credibility will be questioned. Ultimately, community support for
the Plan would decline and use of the protection tools would also decline, in
part because they are voluntary. So, defining the criteria to be used to rank and
eventually select open space parcels t#~awifl-to be protected should be I
• carefully considered.
In site selection, there are more factors to consider than just a site's
conservation value. The City of Maplewood put its criteria for rating open space
into a number of categories:
• Location
• Linear corridor/linkage
• Number of residences in immediate area
• Esthetic value
• Ecological factors
• Unique natural resource
• Public action necessary
• Harmony with Comprehensive Plan
• Special opportunities
• • Public access
604
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Multiple open space use
• Suitability of trails
• Maintenance
• Community support
Maplewood developed a rating worksheet to be completed for each parcel
considered. Each criteria, e.g., serves a high density neighborhood, was
assigned a number of possible points to weight the~importance of each ^ri
In Shorewood, a list of criteria can be compiled from scratch. In this case,
residents should answer the question "what do I want to know about this
property to help me decide if I think it is worth protecting?" Or, as with the
method to develop the vision, goals, and objectives, citizens can respond to a
proposed list of criteria. Citizens could react to the list and then approve or
disapprove each criterion as well as add their own ideas. See Appendix tQ for
a suggested list of selection criteria, this list is not ranked-_
The I=GG FeGGFnFAeRds that paFGel size be used te iRitially 6hGFteR the list ef 144
paFGels. VaGant lots that are less than 1 aGFe and GGGWpied lets that aFe 1
than 5 aGr°° n°UI d be r m°ved fr°m the list to shGrrteH it. If an imn°rt°nt
.
In summary, a public meeting should be held to create a community vision for
open space and develop criteria to rank open space parcels. The City should
invite the entire community by advertising the meeting in local media. Personal
invitations should be sent to people in the community who are known to be
interested in open space issues.
The meeting should begin by presenting an overview of land protection options
and the remaining open space in Shorewood.- The first ryt the meeting,
teem tha#~itizens shouldmust answer +sthe question: what should be the role of
open space in Shorewood? Specifically, people will discuss when, where and
614
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• how open space should be protected.-?- The second question to answer is: what I
factors are important to consider when deciding which open space parcels will
be protected? A list of criteria should be developed and each factor should be
ranked in terms of its relative importance to other criteria. The meeting should
not be longer than three hours.
Recommendations for Developing a Community Vision of Open
Space and Ranking Selection Criteria
• Hold a public meeting to develop a community vision of open
space and to develop and rank a list of criteria for prioritizing
open space parcels.
• Invite the general public through publicity.
• Send invitations to people who have an interest in open
space issues.
Step 4 - Create Working Group(s)
The City Council will create a working group(s). If the group is permanent, it will
be established by ordinance and if it is temporary, by resolution. Citizen
participants mayw+4 be selected from the people who attend the visioning
session. The working group will develop a timeline for its activities.
A number of cities in the region have already developed and implemented land
protection plans. The administration of these programs varies among the cities,
but there are some commonalties. Open space plans are typically developed
by a group of people consisting of citizens and elected officials and sometimes
natural resource professionals. The group recommends action for decision
makers, e.g., City Council, to take. Below are some examples of working
groups in other communities.
624
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• I The City of East Bethel formed an Open Space Task force that was made up of
city officials and natural resource professionals. The group investigated
purchasing open space in their community. The Ttask force established a
Steering Committee of citizens to develop a natural resource plan. The Steering
Committee developed a vision and goals for the plan. The committee also
recommended addressing issues that were important to the community and
identified property to be protected. The committee suggested that the city
appoint an advisory board of seme kind to implement their recommendations.
The City of Chanhassen's natural resource planning process for the Bluff Creek
Watershed involved two working groups. The first group was a Steering
Committee that had one city council member, nine residents, a planning
commissioner, and a parks and recreation commissioner. This committee also
included people from the University of Minnesota Horticulture Department, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the local watershed district board,
the local elementary school, a local business, a developer's firm, the local
school, and a nonprofit conservation organization. The Steering Committee
learned about natural history and local land use through presentations and field
tours. Then, the Scommittee developed a common vision for the watershed.
This vision was expressed in the best and worst outcomes for the area. Goals
and objectives were drafted by city staff and consultants based on the list of best
and worst outcomes. The Steering Committee reviewed the draft, and actions
taken by the committee were decided by consensus.
The second working group in Chanhassen's planning process was a Technical
Committee that included the director of the Parks and Recreation Department,
the director of the Planning Department, and the city's water resources and
environmental resource coordinators. The Technical Committee also had
representatives from a nonprofit conservation organization, the University of
Minnesota's Landscape aArchitecture Department, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Chanhassen
• needed technical expertise to effectively protect the watershed, and city staff
1 6347
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
consulted with the Technical Committee when drafting a natural resource plan.
• The Steering Committee reviewed and amended the draft plan. The
Chanhassen City Council approved the document and the draft became a part
of the sCity's Comprehensive Plan. Finally, staff began implementing the plan
and elected officials started to use the natural resource plan in land use
decisions.
Another example of a land conservation program, on the state level, is the Ohio
Farmland Preservation Task Force. It was formed to research issues involved in
the balance of agricultural land and development. The task force brainstormed
to identify the issues involved and then formed subcommittees to research each
issue. Nine-hundred people attended public meetings throughout the state
during which citizens voiced their concerns about farmland and development.
The task force also received more than 350 letters from citizens with their
opinions on and recommendations for the issues discussed at the meetings.
The task force felt that this information from citizens was vital to developing
recommendations. Part of the task force toured other states that have open
space protection programs in place. The Ohio Farmland Preservation Task
Force recommended that a report, which describes the progress of land
conservation programs, be prepared for decision makers on a biannual basis.
Closer to home, the City of Minnetonka has formed an Open Space Task Force
which is made up of 7 citizens (at least one is from ach of the
Scity's 4 wards), 2 Friends of Minnetonka Parks members, 2 City Council
members, a Park board member, a Planning Commissioner, a Community
Resources Commissioner, and a Senior Advisory Board member. The task
force's purpose is to evaluate and recommend a process for open space
preservation. Specifically, its duties are to:
• Establish goals to achieve open space preservation.
• Develop criteria for identifying and selecting parcels for current and
future preservation.. Where appropriate, identify such parcels and
prioritize their acquisition.
•
644
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• • Develop alternatives for obtaining control over land, such as acquisition,
conservation easements, etc.
• Determine alternative methods for preservation of land controlled by the
sCity for open space.
• Develop a timetable and level of expenditures for achieving open space
preservation goals.
• Present findings to the city council for review.
Minnetonka's task force is like an expanded version of Shorewood's LCC. The
task force has similar duties as the LCC but is a larger group representing more
interests. In Shorewood, tasks such as establishing goals, criteria for
protection, and prioritizing parcels to be protected should involve greater citizen
involvement than is currently represented on the LCC.
Recommendations for Creating a Working Groua(sl
• Establish Aa working group should be established 'n the form
of a steering committee, review board, or task force.
• The group should include citizens and Park and Planning
Commissioners.
• In addition to selecting from any interested Shorewood
residents. G"fizens -Y, members of the working group should
be se!eGte4d should also be selected from the people who
attend the visioning session. -aR"*j possible, citizens
should represent all 4 precincts.
• The working group should draft open space goals and
objectives based on the community vision for open space.
Step 5 - Identify Priority Open Space Parcels
The working group will use the list of criteria developed at the public meeting to
rank open space parcels for protection. It may be necessary during the
selection process to collect additional data about the parcels. The natural
features inventory, Section 2, will not provide information on the majority of
. I criteria in the suggested list (Appendix Q-) because the inventory did not
654
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
include most of these factors. See Appendix R for an example of how to rank
parcels.
Step 6 - Develop a Land Protection Strategy
Once the goals and objectives of land conservation in Shorewood are
established and priority parcels are identified, protection options that are
appropriate for each parcel should be identified. Each land protection option
will have different funding needs and thus require different funding sources.
The strategy will include funding sources, a timeline, and an outline of tasks for
the working group.
• Step 7 - Finalize Open Space Plan
The Open Space Plan will be revised to include the Plan's administration, the
community's vision, goals, and objectives for open space; the criteria for
prioritizing parcels; the identified priority parcels; and the land protection
options that will be employed to preserve the open space parcels. The final
Plan will be presented to the City Council for approval.
4.2 Plan Implementation
In the Plan implementation phase, Tthe intensive short-term projects, e.g., a
bond referendum, will be completed and the long-term projects, e.g., Plan
evaluation, will be started.
6647
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Step 8 - Educate Residents about Land Protection Options and
Promote Plan
One of the working group's duties will be to promote the Open Space Plan and
to educate residents about land protection options. Education can expand the
significance of open space issues beyond the boundaries of the City limits and
inform people of the landscape-level conservation problems. Promotion will
build community support for the Plan. The working group might establish a
separate committee to be responsible for promotion and education.
The LCC has already started Step 8 by writing articles on land conservation
options for the City's newsletter. However, all citizens and decision makers
should have a comprehensive understanding of Shorewood's natural features
. and the land protection options available to private landowners and local
governments. Educational activities should be aimed at elected officials,
citizens, and staff.
Information could be delivered through public meetings, public cable access
channels, the newsletter, other local media, homeowners association meetings,
or one-on-one contact with volunteers who are trained in land conservation.
Public meetings could have legal, conservation, and tax professionals as well
as trained volunteers to answer questions. As mentioned above, registry
programs are an effective way to educate landowners and other residents about
land conservation.
A brochure with land conservation contacts, e.g., the Minnesota Land Trust, and
a summary of land protection options is another effective method of getting the
message across. Most communication is non-verbal, so brochures and any
• other printed material should convey an image of land conservation to convey
6747
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/12/98
the values behind the program. However, talking to landowners one-on-one is
• the most effective approach. This is especially true if landowners consider
educators and promoters as peers. (See Diehl and Barrett 1988 for more detail
on promotion. See Appendix_S for a guide for landowners for choosing land
protection options.)
The Cities of East Bethel and Chanhassen have successfully used education
and promotion as a part of their open space protection efforts. Chanhassen's
planning process included two education stages. The first was educating the
Steering Committee. The second stage was geared towards residents. In East
Bethel, the first step was to give presentations to citizens who own parcels that
were identified as priority protection sites. These presentations focused on the
significance of the natural areas in their community and on voluntary land
protection options available to landowners. Then, the city's Open Space Task I
force invited everyone that owned land in East Bethel to an open house. The
event was publicized through local media and flyers, and landowners with
• priority sites were sent personal invitations. The event began with a short
presentation, but most of the time was informal and landowners spoke with
people who could answer their questions about land conservation and local
natural resources.
The Ohio Farmland Preservation Task.force participated in conferences,
seminars, programs, and annual meetings. These meetings were put on by
agricultural coalitions, township associations, soil and water conservation
districts, religious groups, land-use organizations, and other rural pubic forums.
The meetings were an opportunity for task force members to educate people
about the farmland preservation and to hear people's concerns.
Because educational efforts will be an on-going process, a separate working
group for education (and perhaps promotion) should be considered. The goal
of educational efforts should be to assist elected officials and landowners in
684 I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
evaluating alternative land uses in Shorewood. More specific goals, tasks, and
• a timeline should be established.
Promotional activities should be geared towards the same groups of people but
should emphasize the City's interest in implementing one of the voluntary
protection options. For example, promotion would be especially important if the
City was proposing a bond referendum for open space acquisition or if the City
was implementing an acquisition program. Both promotional and educational
activities should be intensive when the City is considering spending any public
money to protect open space.
Marketing complex ideas such as conservation easements is difficult, but it is
I possible. Promotional activities should address the question `wWhat is in it for
the landowner?' To maintain the public's attention, the audience must learn the
specific landowner benefits from voluntary open space protection. For example,
Diehl and Barrett (1988) outline four simple `key selling points' for conservation
easements:
1. Easements provide permanent protection
2. Property remains in private ownership
3. Easements are tailored to each set of circumstances
4. Easements can yield tax benefits
In its promotion, the City should also ensure that landowners who expect to
claim a federal tax deduction for a charitable gift are informed about the Internal
Revenue Code requirements and IRS regulations. This is in the best interest of
the City so that disgruntled landowners (who thought they were going to get a
tax deduction and did not) are not upset with the City or file suit against the City.
I Recommendations for Education and Promotion
• Never give or be perceived as giving legal or financial advice to
landowners.
• Encourage interested landowners, perhaps in writing, to get
professional legal and financial advice.
694
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Information presented should be as unbiased and objective as
• possible, so everyone feels comfortable with it.
Step 9 - Implement Land Conservation Options
The land protection options that are selected by the working group will be
executed. Steps 8 and 9 should be executed concurrently. (See Appendix T
for an example of policies and guidelines for open space land management.)
Step 10 - Evaluate Plan Effectiveness
The Open Space Plan's ability to guide land use should be assessed on an
annual basis. The evaluation should be based on the goals and objectives for
land protection outlined in the Plan. In the future, the Plan should be reviewed
and if necessary modified.
Step 11 - Continue Long-term Programs
Long-term programs, such as education, will be carried out indefinitely unless
otherwise indicated by the City Council
•
704- I
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Draft Timeline
Timeline should include tasks, who is responsible for the task, resources
available to assist, target completion date, and follow-up.
Date Process Tasks
Step
Winter `98/'99 1 Present Report to City Council
Modify Action Plan if necessary
Winter `98/'99 2 City Council, Planning Commission and Park
Commission determine which governing body will
administer the Plan
Spring `99 3 Advertise community meetings
Hold community meetings
Summarize common vision and develop list of
criteria for prioritizing parcels
Spring '99 4 Citizens and elected officials volunteer to
participate in working group(s)
Solidi working group's purpose and tasks
Summer `99 5 Working soup prioritizes open space parcels
Summer `99 5 Collect more data for priori sites
Fall `99 6 Identify land protection tools to use: working group
decides which land protection options will best
protect each priority open space parcel and how to
protect open space in general.
Identify funding for implementation.
Winter `99/'00 6 Working -group presents a strategy for protecting
the priority open space parcels and for protecting
open space in general to the City Council
Winter '99/'00 7 City Council reviews and adopts the Open Space
Plan.
Winter `99/'00 8 Write newspaper and newsletter articles about
continual land protection options and the new Open Space
Plan.
Create and distribute a brochure explaining land
protection options and promoting the voluntary
options in the Open Space Plan.
Spring '00 9 Establish land protection programs and initiate
protection options.
Jan '01 - then 10 Evaluate the Plan's effectiveness for achieving the
annual) community's open space goals.
continual 11 Manage and maintain the long-term protection
programs. Continue to educate public about land
protection options and promote the Plan.
•
714
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• 5.0 Appendices
Appendix A. Presettlement vegetation of Minnesota.
Natural Heritage Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1988.
•
Northem
Coniferous Forest
k Eastem
Oe,duous Forest
I
Tail grass Prairie
i
I t ~ l I
724 I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix B. Natural Communities and Rare Species of Carver,
Hennepin, and Scott Counties, Minnesota.
Minnesota County Biological Survey Map Series No. 18 (1998). Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Section of
Ecological Services.
U` t~t~e i F
i
U_
1,Zlfakr s <`llrrd&h¢,
36 31 1aid31 r'
MB I 1 (j dRklSN 1.~1nr.•rr
Wbo
lak
Lowry
Woods
® Ji + ,i` _ ~11u _
%
2at8 _ >s n
6
t
\ ( Orono
rrtle/e
1
C , Z ~rrih FTNC)
1 &t I I r rb, , (
1
I' 1 ure ,f ! nberg' tilemori
,
MinnetriSta and Garden f f r " 1
/ t
1Woodfand
M
61r 1 ~t(t-ik~e Lake
h1innetanka } s
a a,
t --y--•ri-h-1 ® 1.
• j i~ Beach 1,`Z
Lan Xdntr Mou d , - ~r . J
\l l 1 ~ '
mn Lt P'{ t ti° 11 wM g Cer
I nkr l Sri
IuldeKs and-~ n 1 1
'tt M;
t '
f = r //ardscreb~le , r /:T
ITN Ba
t _ V • -1 j
tlk et m r
l~~ 11~y~Woods v 1 ljj ~~1
%
r
J s
Wawatosa kgCgnte
Island CQiS Lam., t
C7 1 31 i Shorewood
r~`'. • (ct~r / 3
La~la ~1/n aka , ' - - y- b.i<t r+>l
rre
Re ional ft ~dtmr L ke
'AS C
H II 1
_rrkr' ca 1%t t/(ta
Zuntbre L r ' atr 1 - 6
Lowry /Vaiurd Cen ter _ y l
vy.- M- -I Smut -..-1_~ ;Lake Mi aShiA)l Gtr rr;nrr.
I:UFtf3T L CC
V _ l La4 101MMA r~ Reg rk V'iel • LakerLilCt
M; y
Lmr ~ rtl CarveY.Park Resolve 1
t 1 Lake Allintinvash ~l nl_e <1 rut
%
I rkr . ,
~ I
r~. ~'rk • , r ` :Ir +rnrr4 Lrtkr LD n I t
F ,
i University
ictona -
•
734
F-4 I Animals, federally- or state-listed
Mammals
• Prairie vole * (Mk7otus ochrogaster)
Plains pocket mouse (Perognathus fIavescens)
Eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflapus)
Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogak putorius)
Birds
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii)
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
Acadian flycatcher (Empidonaxvimscens)
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Common moorhen (Gallinula chlonrpus)
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucorephalus)
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Hooded warbler (liisonia citrina)
Reptiles
Smooth softshell (Apalone mutica)
Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)
Western ho pose snake (Heterodon nasicus)
Gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer)
Fish
Skipjack herring * (Alosa chrysochloris)
Blue sucker (Cycleptus elo?Watus)
Least darter (Etheostoma mucroperca)
Pugnose shiner (Notropis anogenus)
Mussels
Mucket mussel (Actinonaias ligamentina)
Elktoe mussel (Alasmidonta margmata)
Rock pocketbook mussel (Arcidens confragosus)
Ebonyshell mussel (Fusconaia ebena)
Ffiggmis eye mussel (Lampsilis higginsi)
Yellow sandshell mussel (Lampsilis tens)
Creek heelspplitter mussel (Lasmipm compressa)
Fluted-shellmussel (Lasmigona costata)
Black sandshell mussel (Li mia recta)
Hickorynut mussel (Obovaria olivaria)
Round pigtoe,mussel (Pleurobema co cdneum)
Monkeyface mussel (Quadrula metaneura)
Wartyback mussel (Quadrula nodulata)
Pistolgrip mussel (Tritogonia verrucosa)
CONIFER SWAMP FOREST
Tamarack Swamp - minerotrophic subtype - Forested swamps on saturated muck or peat
in small ice-block basins. Sphagnum mosses are limited to small patches in acidic
microhabitats, such as on decayed stumps. Surface water ppH mfidly acidic to circumneutral.
Canopy consists of a moderate to high cover of tamarack (Larix laricina), sometimes mixed
with black ash, paper birch, American elm, or red mapple. Understory typically contains low
to moderate cover of shrubs including speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), red-osier dogwood,
highbush cranberry (Viburnum trilobum), and willows (Salix spp.). Ground-layer contains
many species present in mixed hardwood swamp. Less minerotrophic sites may also contain
fen associates such as bog birch (Betula landulifera), wiregrass sedge (Carex lasiocarpa),
tussock sedge (Carex stricta), marsh St. f ohn's-wort (Triadenum f raseri), and LoeseYs
twayblade (Liparis toesellii). Approximate total area: 320 acres.
•
DECIDUOUS FOREST
Oak Forest - mesic subtype - Dry-mesic to mesic forests on moist, well-drained soils on
glacial till or on north-facing slopes on outwash terraces. Canopy typically dominated by red
oak (Quercus rubra); other im ortant canopy trees include white oak (Quercus alba),
northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and basswood
(Ulia americana). Common subcanopy trees and tree seedlings consist mostly of shade-
tolerant species, particularly sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and ironwood (Ostrya
virginiana), but also include trees that readily colonize canopy gaps such as bitternut hickory
(Carya cordiformis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and big-toothed aspen (PapuIus
grandidentata). Shrub layer sparse and commonly includes gooseberries (lobes spp.) and
chokecherry (Prunus uirginiana). Ground layer composed oshade-talerant herbs such as
ppointed-leaved tick-trefoil (Desmodium giurinosum), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum),
honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensislopseed (Phryma leptostachya), sweet Cicely
(Osmorhiza claytonii), and white snakeroot (Eupatonum rugosum). Approximate total area:
2,670 acres.
Oak Forest - dry subtype - Dry forests typically on coarse-textured, dry soils formed in
glacial till or on & acial river terraces, often on south- to west-facing slopes. Many stands
have succeeded from oak savanna or oak woodland since European settlement and fire
suppression; these have continuous but often thin canopies composed of open-grown trees;
canopy typically dominated by a combination of bur oak, northern . oak, and white oak,
sometimes with lesser amounts of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and red oak. Shrub
layer moderately dense and commonly includes gray dogwood (Corpus foemina ssp.
racemosa), American hazel (Corylus amencanus), gooseberries, and downy arrowwood
(Viburnum rafinesguianum). Ground layer composed of plants tolerant of moderate to heavy
shade and dry soils, such as elm-leaved goldenrod (Sol ago utmifoiia), hog-peanut
(Amphicarpaea bracteata), shining bedstraw (Galium concinnum), ecliptic shinleaf (Pyrola
• elIiptica), and Pennsylvania sedge (Carer pensylvanica). Approximate total area: 130 acres.
m Maple-Basswood Forest - Mesic to wet-mesic forests on moist soils formed in glacial till or
on cool, north-facing slopes on outwash terraces. Dense canopy dominated by sugar maple,
basswood, and red oak, with lesser amounts of slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and black ash (Fmxinus nigra). American elm (Ulmus
americana) was once common in the canopy but is present today mostly as standing dead
snags. Subcanopy and shrub lavers are usually dominated by sugar maple and often contain
ironwood, bitternut hickory, bladder-nut (Stap~ylea trifolia), pagoda dogwood (Corpus
alternifolia), red-berried elder (Sambucus or gooseberries. Ground layer includes
early springg ephemeral species such as chman's breeches (Dicentra cucullaria), false rue-
anemone (Isopyrum biternatum), toothwort (Dentaria laciniata), and white trout-lily
(Erythmnium albidum); other common herbs are plants adapted to deep shade such as white
bear sedge (Carex aIbursina), putty-root (Applectrum hyemale), Virginia waterleaf
(Hydrophyllum vi nianum), wild leek (Album tricoccum), and zig-zag goldenrod (Solidago
flexicaulis), as well as several species present in mesic oak forests. Approximate total area:
3,450 acres.
® Lowland Hardwood Forest - Wet-mesic bottomland forests on seasonally saturated alluvial
soil above normal flood levels in small valleys. Canopy and subcanopy dominated by any
combination of basswood, black ash, green ash, American elm, hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis), bur oak, or sugar maple. Ground layer often dominated by cleavers (Galium
aparine), Virginia waterleaf, wood nettle ( a canadensis), and eastern narrowleaf
sedge (Carex amphibola var. turgida); also includes many herbaceous plants present in
maple-basswood forests. Approximate total area: 370 acres.
• EMERGENT MARSH
Mixed Emergent Marsh - Open, flooded wetlands on mineral or shallow organic soils at
lake or river margins. Persistent emergent vegetation dominates, often in a mosaic of single-
species patches; dominant species are primarily river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis), cattails,
lake sedge, wild rice (Zizania aquatica), bur reed (Sparganium eurycarpum), bluejoint grass
(Calamagrostis canadensis), and rice cut grass (Leersuz orywides). Common associated
plants are broad-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), water plantain (Alisma
subcordatum), sweetflag (Acores calamus), water parsnip (Sium suave), wild mint (Mentha
arvensis), and American water-horehound (Lycopus americanus). Approximate total area:
3,140 acres.
® Cattail Marsh - Open, flooded wetlands on mineral or shallow organic soil in shallow basins
or along lake or river margins. Dominated by cattails (Typha lati folia and T. angusti folia);
typical associated graminoid and forb species include those of mixed emergent marsh. (This
type was not mapped except where very large examples 160 acres) were present or where it
was an important component of a complex of natural communities.) Approximate total area:
1,800 acres.
WET MEADOW I FEN
r < Wet Prairie - Wet prairies on poorly drained, mineral or shallow organic soil in shallow
depressions. Dominant graminoids are prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), bluejoint grass,
woolly sedge, and Sartwell's sedge (Carer sartweilii). Scattered clumps of willows and red-
osier dogwood present. Typical orbs include gayfeather (Liatris pycnostachya), sneezeweed
(Helenium autumnale), Vnguua mountain-mint (Pycnanthemum virgimanum), New England
aster (Aster novae-angliae), and great lobelia (Lobe to siphilitica). Approximate total area:
120 acres.
Wet Meadow - Open wetlands on wet, seasonally flooded mineral or shallow organic soil in
shallow basins or along the margins of marshes within large river valleys; groundwater
seepage is present in some cases. Dominant &rammoids are lake sedge, tussock sedge, and
bluejoint grass; common associated 5raminoids include bur reed, cattails, hardstem bulrush
(Scirpus acutus), and aquatic, sedge ( rex aquatilis). Clumps of shrubs are common and
typically include red-osier dogwood, slender. willow, and pussy willow Common forbs are
swamp-loosestrife (Lysimachia thyrsi flora), spotted joe-pye weed (Eupaforium maeulaturn},
northern marsh fern, American water-horehound (Lycopus americanus), and Labrador
bedstraw (Galium labradoricum)r. Approximate total area: 1,030 acres.
•
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12198
Appendix C . Information sources
Arthur Andersen, Russell V. Michaletz
Biko Associates, Jean Coleman
City of Eden Prairie, Bob Lambert
City of Maplewood, Bruce Anderson
City of Plymouth, Erik Blank
City of Red Wing, Brian Peterson
City of Woodbury, Bob Klat and Steve Kernik
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry, Meredith
Cornett
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program,
Sharon Nelson, Hannah Dunevitz, and Kathryn Lease
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Office of Planning, Tom Kranz
Minnesota Land Trust, Anne Haines
Rossini and Rossini, P.A.; Ray Rossini
Trust for Public Land, Cordilia Pearson and Angela Crossman
Twin Cities Tree Trust, Mark Weaver
Washington County Planning and Administrative Services
7747
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
i Appendix D. Finance Director's memo on a potential bond
referendum.
784 !
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128 • www.state.net/shorewood • cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMO
TO: Land Conservation Committee Members & Staff
FROM: Al Rolek, Finance Director
DATE: August 10, 1998
RE: Questions Relating to Financing Acquisition of Open Space Property
Two questions were posed in a memo from Jim Hurm dated July 24 relating to financing
the acquisition of property for open space purposes. I consulted with the City's financial
advisor, Springsted, Inc., in preparing the answer to these questions. The questions and
their answers are as follows:
Q 1. What is the possibility of using proceeds from or extending the term of our present tax
increment financing (TIF) district for purchasing of land for open space purposes?
Al. Our TIF district is an economic development district which, under state statutes, can
run for a term of not more than 10 years. This district was created in 1990 and is
scheduled to expire in 2000. The increments which this district will generate are totally
committed to the retirement of debt issued for improvements within the district. The district
will not generate enough increment to fully retire this debt before the district expires. It is
not possible to extend the life of the district beyond the year 2000 without special
legislation. Further, even if special legislation were approved, the increments would most
likely still be dedicated to the retirement of the remaining outstanding bonds.
Q2. What would the tax impact on residential properties of various values be if bonds in
the amount of $500,000 were sold to finance the acquisition of open space?
A2. First, the sale of tax-supported bonds requires a successful referendum vote. Once
the public has approved the sale of the issue, the estimated tax impact on a 10-year, 15-
year and a 20-year bond of $500,000 would be as follows:
10-Year Bond 15-Year Bond 20-Year Bond
Market Value Annual Tax Impact Annual Tax Impact Annual Tax Impact
$ 100,000 $ 12.33 $ 9.97 $ 8.28
150,000 18.50 14.95 12.42
200,000 24.66 19.93 16.55
250,000 30.83 24.92 20.69
300,000 36.99 29.90 24.83
500,000 61.66 49.83 41.39
1,000,000 123.31 99.66 82.77
fi
's
MEMO
Land Conservation Committee
August 10, 1998
The estimated tax impact on a 10-year, 15-year and a 20-year bond of $1,000,000 would
be as follows:
10-Year Bond 15-Year Bond 20-Year Bond
Market Value Annual Tax Impact Annual Tax Impact Annual Tax Impact
$ 100,000 $ 24.32 $19.76 $16.72
150,000 36.49 29.65 25.08
200,000 48.65 39.53 33.45
250,000 60.81 49.41 41.81
300,000 72.97 59.29 50.17
500,000 121.62 98.82 83.62
1,000,000 243.25 197.64 167.23
By state statute, taxes for referendums are levied using market values rather than tax
capacities, thus eliminating any "progressivity" from the formula. Both residential and
commercial/industrial properties would be taxed based upon their market values.
Should you have any questions relative to this information I will be happy to discuss them
with you. If you would like any additional information please let me know and I will
research it for you.
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix E. Sample conservation easement.
8047-
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street a M~
Minneapolis iIMN 55402
Graven (612) 337-9300 telephone ?
(612) 337-9310 fax
C H A R T E R E D e-mail: atrvs@kennedy-graven.com
JOHN B. DEAN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9207
e-mail: jdean@kennedy-gmven.com
August 4, 1998
Erica Johnson
Planning Intern
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331-8927
Re: Land Conservation Easement
Dear Ms. Johnson:
At the request of the City Administrator, I have reviewed a conservation easement which was
granted to the City of Plymouth in 1992. The easement appears to be well drafted and meets the
requirement of Minn. Stat. 84C.
While it may serve as some useful guidance in the preparation of conservation easements in
Shorewood, a review of the document makes it clear that it was very specifically tailored for a
single transaction. Consequently, much of the detail in the document would not be too useful.
An organization called the Land Trust Alliance has a book entitled "The Conservation Easement
Handbook" (and 1996 revisions to the book). I am told that the book contains very helpful
information regarding the preparation of such easements.
You can order a coov of the hook and revisions by calling (202) 638-4725.
If you need any further information, please call.
Respectfully your ,
Joh B. Dean
JB :sms
cc: Teri Naab
JBD145237
CH130-45
2329902
GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT is made this ay of
,beCtiltLe.K , 1992, by CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY, A MINNESOTA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, - ("Carlson"),
to the CITY OF PLYMOUTH, a Minnesota municipal corporation
("City").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Carlson is the fee owner of certain real property
located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Outlot
17~ A, HARBOR WOODS according to the recorded plat thereof, (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to the Luce Line Trail, a
major recreational trail in Plymouth administered by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, and adjacent to Interstate Highway
494; and
WHEREAS, it is important to the City to preserve the natural
beauty and aesthetics of the community, to avoid urban closeness
and to preserve open space, natural wetlands and woodlands for
scenic, aesthetic and wildlife purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 11.2 acres of
wooded land and wetlands; and
WHEREAS, the Property provides excellent upland and wetland
habitat and also contains a unique remnant of native prairie.
Wildlife species expected to be present on the Property because of
its natural character include cardinals, robins, cedar waxwings,
great horned owls, barred owls, flickers, pil ed woodpeckers
/Z~z-AND PRIOR TAXES hID
DEPT. OF FROPFRT'I T.AX PUBLIC R?Et:ORDS
3ANS = :5 t : T'RED
NriFI\LBC\HARBOR\Cd1SERYE.ES?I 9/6/42 T1
DPD 30 992
G---._
hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, flycatchers, blue jays.
thrushes, warblers and sparrows.. In the wetland areas, bird
species include red winged black birds, mallards, wood ducks and
other wetland birds. Upland species include squirrels, cottontail
rabbits and white tail deer.
WHEREAS, a portion of tie Property was designated as high
density residential use on the City's Comprehensive Plan and a
portion was designated as single family residential use; and
WHEREAS, Carlson proposed to the City of Plymouth to develop
the Property in accordance with the uses designated on the City's
Comprehensive Plan, which proposal was objected to by members of
the public on the basis that such development would materially and
adversely affect the natural environment of the area; and
WHEREAS, the creation of the Easement to prevent development
. and to preserve the natural character of the Property will benefit
residents of the City and other members of the public who use
Interstate I-494 and the Luce Line Trail by preserving the natural,
scenic and aesthetic character of the Property; and
WHEREAS, preservation of the Property by means of the Easement
will be consistent with the City's program for wetland preservation
and with the purpose and intent of the Plymouth Zoning ordinance
by lessening congestion, providing adequate light and air,
preventing the overcrowding of land, avoiding undue concentration
of population and by recognizing and preserving special land
features including wetlands, vegetation and wildlife areas.
HW\LBC\HAR&M\COUSERVE.ESH 9/6/92 2
' WHEREAS, Carlson desires freely to donate the Easement to
City, and City wishes to obtain the Easement over the Property in
favor of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the benefit and welfare of the City and
the mutual covenants contained herein, Carlson and City hereby
agree as follows:
1. Grant of Conservation Easement. Carlson hereby grants
to City for the exclusive benefit of City a perpetual easement (the
"Easement") for conservation purposes, specifically scenic and
aesthetic enjoyment of the general public, preservation of the
Property in its natural condition and avoidance of development.
The Easement shall preclude placement by anyone of any structure
or manmade object, permanent or temporary, in the Property covered
by the Easement, except for public utility improvements authorized
i
by the City and incidental objects and structures desirable for
natural preservation such as protective berming and fencing. The
Easement shall also preclude the use of the Property as a park,
recreation area or trailway by anyone.
2. Acceptance. City hereby accepts the Easement from
Carlson and pays no consideration therefor. City agrees the
Easement advances a material City policy to preserve wetlands and
upland habitat, to preserve the natural character of the area near
the Luce Line Trail and the goals of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
set forth above. Further, the easement will insure valuable scenic
and aesthetic benefits for the public. City agrees it shall not
transfer the Easement interest, unless, as a condition of such
HW\LSC\HARBCR\COUSERVE. ESH 9/6/92 3
transfer, the donee agrees that the conservation purposes for which
the Easement contribution was originally made will continue to be
carried out. Any successor donee shall be a qualified organization
under section 170(h) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code or any
amendment thereto.
3. Warranties. Carlson hereby warrants and represents that
it owns fee title to the Property and has full legal authority to
execute this Agreement.
4. Indemnity. Carlson shall at all times indemnify and save
the City harmless from and against all damages, costs and expenses,
including legal fees sustained or incurred by reason of a Claim.
"Claim" means receipt of a notice, demand or complaint seeking
payment of damages for injury caused by use of the Property or for
damages or expenses for Hazardous Material disposal or remedial
action. "Hazardous Material" means any hazardous pollutants as
defined in the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, the Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, or the
Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, as amended.
Nothing in this paragraph shall make Carlson responsible for any
damages, costs, expenses or Claims caused by the City or the City's
officials, employees, agents or contractors.
5. Property Maintenance. Carlson shall continue to maintain
the Property in a manner consistent with the purpose of this
Easement.
. HMI%LBC\HAR8M%MWSERVE.ESM 9/6/92 4
f 6. Intent of Parties. The parties acknowledge that the City
. made no payment to Carlson for the grant of the Easement from
Carlson, and the grant is based on a charitable and donative intent
by Carlson. The parties further acknowledge that Carlson is under
no coercion to grant the Easement, but is granting the Easement to
City by its own free will.
7. Violation of Agreement. Carlson agrees that if the terms
of this Agreement are violated., the city may by injunctive,
declaratory or other legal proceeding enforce the terms of the
Easement, and shall have the right in such proceeding to require
full and complete restoration of the Easement Property to its
natural condition as of the time of this donation. Carlson shall
pay all legal fees, costs and disbursements of City in any such
proceeding in which Carlson is found in violation-of this grant of
• Easement and any and all costs of restoration of the Easement
Property in such case.
8. Acknowledgment. City acknowledges that Carlson has
assigned a present fair market value to the Easement of $378,000
which represents the value of the Property for development in
accordance with its current zoning. The parties acknowledge that
the Easement will preserve air, water, land, aesthetic and scenic
resources defined as "natural resources" in Minn. Stat. S 116B.02,
will effectuate the Land Use Plan of the City and constitutes a
conservation easement as provided in Minn. Stat. Chap. 84C.
9. Bindina Effect. The Easement granted and the covenants
contained in this Agreement shall run with the land and shall'be
HMM\LSC\HARBOR\CONSERVE.ESM 9/6/92 5
binding and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
• respective successors and assigns. Upon any assignment-of the
Property by Carlson, the assignee shall be required to assume all
obligations hereunder as a condition of the assignment and
thereupon Carlson shall be relieved of all such obligations.
10. Amendment. This Agreement shall be amended, modified,
or terminated only by a written agreement signed by the parties
hereto.
11. Unenforceable Provisions. If any provision of this
Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, such provision shall
be deemed severed from this Agreement, which shall otherwise remain
in full force and effect.
12. Controllincx Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed on the above date.
CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY, CITY OF P M0 H
A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
ByjkN2____ By
Dean Riesen, General Partner Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
n This instrument was acknowledged before me on this ;ls'day of
U yh , 1992, by Dean Riesen, the general partner of CARLSON
REAL ESTATE COMPANY, A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
on behalf of the pa tnership. ,
Notary Public
. ~ IS It KIEL
NMM\lBC\NARBOR\COMSERVE.ESH 9/6/92 6 SUSA 1 ,SOTARY PUSUfr` 4- NMA
NE.111NEP1N COUNTY
y
tity Ccmmi~io~ E%;%= Aug. 19.
STATE OF.MINNESOTA } -
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was a5gknowle~iged before me on this day of
1992, by f-ranK /SayleS and
41 -
the e nQ ag Q r- and of the City of
Plymouth on behalf o the City- w
ltiGc-~-l~
Notary Publ c
LAURIE F. RAUENHORST
NOTARY PU13UC -MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My commission expires 10.16-94
This Instrument Was Drafted By:
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD (CKD/HMM)
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 335-1500
•
. H!M\L8C\HAR8OR\CONSERVE.ESA 9/6/92 7
l±
\\3
LLJ
L• rQ~. W
N 20
Uhl
bt-
00C.; v Q
LN C w
3 o z U
• W W
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Appendix F. Federal regulations for qualified conservation
contributions.
17 C= V
ARTHUR
.ANDERSEN
June 17, 1998 Arthur Andersen LLP
Mr. Dean A. Riesen - - -
4; South- Seventh Strect
20030 Excelsior Boulevard
{inneaaoiis b(N 55402-2SOO
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 0123321111
till CC
By
Dear Dean:
We have enclosed some materials regarding Qualified Conservation Contributions for your
review. Please call if you need more information.
Very truly yours,
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
B
/i
y-~'~ ,
Ruse iclx6
MBT
Enclosures
•
894
§1.170A-14 Qualified conservation contributions.-
(a) Qualified consenvatioti conrribntrionts. A deduction under section 170 is genes ally not allowed for a charitable
interest in the property other than certain
contribution of any interest in property that consists of less than the donor's entire
transfers in trust (see 31. I70A-6 relating to charitable contributions in trust and 31.170A-7 relating to contributions not in trust
• of partial interests in property). However, a deduction may be allowed under section 170(f)(3)(B)(iii) for the value of a qualified
conservation contribution if the requirements of this section are met A qualified conservation contribution is the contribution of
a qualified real property interest to a qualified organization exclusively for conservation purposes. To be eligible for a deduction
under this section, the conservation purpose must be protected in perpetuity.
(b) Qualifted real property interest--(1) Entire interest of donor other titan qualified mineral interest.-(i) The entire
interest of the donor other than a qualified mineral interest is a qualified real property interest. A qualified mineral interest is the
donor's interest in subsurface oil, gas, or other minerals and the right of access to such minerals.
(ii) A real property interest shall not be treated as an entire interest other than a qualified mineral interest by reason of
section 170(h)(2)(A) and this paragraph (b)(1) if the property in which the donor's interest exists was divided prior to the
contribution in order to enable the donor to retain control of more than a qualified mineral interest or to reduce the real property
interest donated. Sze Treasury regulations y 1.170A-7(a)(2)(i). An entire interest in real property may consist of an undivided
interest in the property. But see section 170(h)(5)(A) and the regulations thereunder (relating to the requirement that die
conservation purpose which is the subject of the donation must be protected in perpetuity).
Minor interests, such as rights-of-way, that will not interfere with the conservation purposes of the donation, may be transferred
prior to the conservation contribution without a$ecting the treatment of a property interest as a qualified real properrinterest
under his paragraph (b)(1).
(2) Perpetual conservation restriction. A perpetual conservation restriction is a qualified real property interest A
'`perpetual conservation restriction" is a restriction granted in pemeruity on the use which may be made of real
property--including, an easement or other interest in real property hat under state law has attributes similar to an easement (e.g.,
a restrictive covenant or equitable servitude). For purposes of this section, the terms "easement", "conservation restriction", and
,,perpetual conservation restriction" have the same meaning. The definition of "perpetual conservation restriction" under this
paragraph (b)(3) is not intended to preclude the deductibility of a donation of affirmative rights to use a land or water area under
§ 1.170A-13(d)(2). Any rights reserved by the donor in the donation of a perpetual conservation restriction must conform to he
requirements of this section. See e.g., paragraphs (d)(4)(ii), (d)(5)(i), (e)(3), and (g)(4) of this section.
(c) Qualifted organization--(I) Eligible donee. To be considered an eligible donee under this section, an organization must
be a qualified organization, have a commitment to protect the . Dnsenta ion urposes of the donation. and have the resources.to-
enforce the restrictions. A conservation group organized or operated primarily or substantially for one of the conservation
pumoses specified in section 170(b)(4)(A) will be considered to have the commitment required by the preceding senterice. A
qualified organization need not set aside funds to enforce the restrictions tht.are he subject of the contribution For purposes of
E is section, a term "qualified organization' means: -
(i) A governmental unit described in section I70(b)(I)(A)(v);
(ii) An organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)-,
(iii) A charitable organization described in section 501(c)(3) that meets the public support test of section 509(x)(2);
(iv) A charitable organization described in section 501(c)(3) that meets the requirements of section 509(x)(3) and is
controlled by an organization described in paragraphs (c)(1)(1), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(2) Transfers by donee. A deduction shall be allowed for a contribution under this section only if in the instrument of
conveyance the donor prohibits the donee from subsequently transferring the easement (or, in the case of a remainder interest or
the reservation of a qualified mineral interest, the property), whether or not for consideration, unless the donee organization, as a
condition of the subsequent transfer, requires that the conservation purposes which the contribution was originally intended to
advance continue to be carried out. Moreover, subsequent transfers must be restricted to organizations qualifying, at the time of
the subsequent transfer, as an eligible donee under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. When a later unexpected change in the
conditions surrounding the properly that is the subject of a donation under paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section makes
impossible or impractical the continued use of the property for conservation purposes, the requirements of this paragraph will
• be met if the property is sold or exchanged and any proceeds are used by the donee organization in a manner consistent with the
Pape 1
conservation purposes of the original contribution. In the case of a donation under paragraph (b)(3) of this section to which the
preceding sentence applies, see also paragraph (g)(5)(11) of this section.
(d) Conservation purposes--(I) In general. For purposes of section 170(h) and this section, the tern "conservacon
purposes" means-
(1) The preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation by, or the education of, the general public. within the meaning
of paragraph (d)(2) of this section,
(ii) The protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem, within the meaning of
paragraph (d)(3) of this section,
(iii) The preservation of certain open space (including farmland and forest land) within the meaning of paragraph
(d)(4) of this section, or
(iv) The preservation of an historically important land area or a certified historic structure, within die meaning of
paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
(2) Recreation or education--(i) In general. The donation of a qualified real property unterest to preserve land areas for
the outdoor recreation of the general public or for the education of the general public will meet the conservation purposes test of
this section. Thus, conservation purposes would include, for example, the preservation of a water area for the use of the public
for boating or fishing, or a nature or hiking trail for the use of the public.
(ii) .Access. The preservation of land areas for recreation or education will not meet the test of this section unless the
recreation or education is for the substantial and regular use of the general public.
(3) Protection of environmental system--(O In general. The donation of a qualified real property interest to protect a
sigtuficant relatively natural habitat in which a fish, wildlife, or plant community, or similar ecosystem, normally lives will meet
d,.e conservation purposes test of this section. The fact that the habitat or environment has been altered to some extent by human
activity will not result in a deduction being denied under this section if the fish, wildlife, or plants continue to exist there in a
relatively natural state. For example, the preservation of a take formed by a man-made dam or a salt pond formed by a
. man-made dike would meet the conservation purposes test if the lake or pond were a natural feeding area for a wildlife
community that included rare, endangered, or threatened native species.
(ii) Significant habitat or ecosystem. Significant habitats and ecosystems include, but are not limited to, habitats for
rare, endangered, or threatened species of animals, fish, or plants; natural areas that represent high quality examples of a
terrestrial community or aquatic community, such as islands that are undeveloped or not intensely developed where the coastal
ecosystem is relatively intact; and natural areas which are included in, or which contribute to, the ecological viability of a local,
state, or national park, nature preserve, wildlife refuge, wilderness area, or other similar conservation area.
(iii) Limitations on public access to property that is the subject of a donation under this paragraph (d)(3) shall not
render the donation nondeductible. For example, a restriction on all public access to the habitat of a threatened native animal
species protected by a donation under this paragraph (d)(3) would not cause the donation to be nondeductible.
(4) Preservation of open space--(i) In general The donation of a qualified real property interest to preserve open space
(including farmland and forest land) will meet the conservation purposes test of this section if such a preservation is_
(A) Pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state, or local governmental conservation policy and will yield a
significant public benefit, or
(B) For the scenic enjoyment of the general public and will yield a significant public benefit.
An open space easement donated on or after December 18, 1980, must meet the requirements of section 170(h) in order to be
deductible.
(ii) .Scenic enjovntent--(A) Factors. A contribution made for the preservation of open space may be for the scenic
enjoyment of the general public. Preservation of land may be for the scenic enjoyment of the general public if development of
the property would impair the scenic character of the local rural or urban landscape or would intertere with a scenic panorama
• that can be enjoyed from a park. nature preserve, road, waterbody, trail, or historic structure or land area, and such area or
Page 2
transportation way is open to, or utilized by, the public. "Scenic enjoyment" will be evaluated by considering all pertinent facts
and circumstances germane to the contribution. Regional variations in topography, geoiogy, biology, and cultural and economic
conditions require flexibility in the applicatior_ of this test, but do not lessen the burden on the taxpayer to demonstrate the scenic
characteristics of a donation under this paragraph. The application of a particular objective factor to help define a view as
"scenic" in one setting may in fact be entirely inappropriate in another setting. Among the factors to be considered are:
. (/)The compatibility of the land use with other land in the vicinity;
(3) The degree of contrast and variety provided by the visual scene;
(3) The openness of the land (which would be a more significant factor in an urban or densely populated setting
or in a heavliy wooded area);
(J ) Reiief from urban closeness;
(5) The harmonious variety of shapes and textures;
(6) Tice degree to which the land use maintains the scale and character of the urban landscape to preserve open
space, visual enjoyment, and sunlight for the surrounding area,
(i) The consistency of the proposed scenic view with a methodical state scenic identification program, such as a
state landscape inventory; and
(8 ) The consistency of the proposed scenic view with a regional or local landscape inventory made pursuant to a
sufficiently rigorous review process, especially if' he donation is-endorsed by an appropriate state or local governmental agency.
(B).4ccess. To satisfy the requirement of scenic enjoyment by the general public, visual (rather than physical)
access to or across the property by the general public is sufficient. Under the terms of an open space easement on scenic
property, the entire property need not be visible to the public for a donation.to qualify under this section, although the public
benefit from the donation may be insufficient to qualify for a deduction if only a small portion of the property is visible to the
public.
(iii) Governmental conservation policy--(A) In general. The requirement that the preservation of open space be
pursuant to a clearly delineated Federal, state, or focal governmental policy is intended to protect the types of property identified
by representatives of the general public as worthy of preservation or conservation. A general declaration of conservation goals
by a single official or legislative body is not sufficient. However, a governmental conservation policy need not be a certification
program that identifies particular lots or small parcels of individually owned property. This requirement will be met by
donations that further a specific, identified conservation project, such as the preservation of land within a state or local landmark
district that is locally recognized as being significant to that district; the preservation of a wild or scenic river; the preservation
of farmland pursuant to a state program for flood prevention and control; or the protection of the scenic, ecological, or historic
character of land that is contiguous to, or an integral part of, the surroundings of existing recreation or conservation sites. For
example, the donation of a perpetual conservation restriction to a qualified organization pursuant to a formal resolution or
ce tificat'on by a local governmental agency established under state law specifically identifying the subject property as worthy of
protection for conservation purposes will meet the requirement of this paragraph. A program need not be funded to satisfy this
requirement, but the program must involve a significant commitment by the government with respect to the conservation
project- For example, a governmental program according preferential"tax assessment or preferential zoning for certain property
deemed worthy of protection for conservation purposes would constitute a significant commitment by the government.
(B) Effect of acceptance by_governmental agency. Acceptance of an easement by an agency of the Federal
Government or by an agency of a state or local government (6r by a commission, authority, or similar body duly constituted by
the state or local government and acting on behalf of the state or local government) tends to establish the requisite clearly
delineated governmental policy, although such acceptance, without more, is not sufficient The more rigorous the review process
by the governmental agency, the more the acceptance of the easement tends to establish the requisite clearly delineated
governmental policy. For example, in a state where the legislature has established an Environmental Trust to accept gifts to the
state which meet certain conservation purposes and to submit the gifts to a review that requires the approval of the state's
highest officials, acceptance of a gift by the Trust tends to establish the requisite clearly delineated governmental policy.
However, if the Trust merely accepts such gifts without a review process, the requisite clearly delineated Bove-m rental policy is
not established.
•
Page 3
Cop}Tright t998. CCH Incorporated
(C) .-access. A limitation on public access to property subject to a donation under this paragraph (d)(4)(...) shall not
render die deduction nondeductible unless the conservation purpose of the donation would be undennined or frustrated without
public access. For example, a donation pursuant to a governmental policy to protect the scenic character of land near a river
requires visual access to the same extent as would a donation under paragraph (d)(4)(11) of this section.
• (iv) .Significant public benefit--(A) Factors. All contributions made for the preservation of open space must yield a
significant public benefit. Public benefit will be evaluated by considering all pertinent facts and circumstances germane to die
contribution. Factors germane to the evaluation of public benefit from one contribution may be irrelevant in determining public
benefit from another contribution. No single factor will necessarily be determinative. Among the factors to be considered are:
(1 ) The uniqueness of the property to the area;
) The intensity of land development in the vicinity of the property (both existing development and foreseeable
trends of development);
(3 ) The consistency of the proposed open space use with public programs (whether Federal, state or local) for
conservation in the region, including programs for outdoor recreation, irrigation or water supply protection, water quality
maintenance or enhancement, food prevention and control, erosion control, shoreline protection, and protection of land areas
included in, or related to, a government approved master plan or land management area:
(4) The consistency of the proposed open space use with existing private conservation programs in tlhe area, as
evidenced by other land, protected by easement or fee ownership by organizations referred to in § 1.170A-14(c)(1), in close
proximity to the propeny,,
(.i ) The likelihood that development of the property would lead to or contribute to degradation of the scenic,
natural, or historic character of the area;
(6 ) The opportunity for he general public to use the property or to appreciate its scenic values;
(i) The importance of the property in preserving a local or regional landscape or resource chat attracts tourism
or commerce to he area;
(8 ) The &-eiihood that the donee will acquire equally desirable and valuable substitute property or property
rights;
(9 ) The cost to the donee of enforcing the terms of the conservation restriction;
(10 ) The population density in the area of the property; and
(11 ) The consistency of the proposed open space use with a legislatively mandated program identifying
particular parcels of land for future protection.
(B) Illustrations. The preservation of an ordinary tract of land would not in and of itself yield a significant public
benefit, but the preservation of ordinary land areas in conjunction with other factors that demonstrate significant public benefit
or the preservation of a unique land area for public enjoyment would yield a significant public benefit. For example, the
preservation of a vacant downtown lot would not by itself yield a significant public benefit, but the preservation of the
downtown lot as a public garden would, absent countervailing factors, yield a significant public benefit. The following are other
examples of contributions which would, absent countervailing factors, yield a significant public benefit: the preservation of
farmland pursuant to a state program for flood prevention and control; the preservation of a unique natural land formation for he
enjoyment of the general public: the preservation of woodland along a public highway pursuant to a government program to
preserve the appearance of the area so as to maintain the scenic view from the highway; and the preservation of a stretch of
undeveloped property located between a public highway and the ocean in order to maintain the scenic ocean view from the
highway.
(v) Limitation. A deduction will not be allowed for the preservation ofopen space under section 170(h)(4)(A)(11ii), if
the terms of the easement permit a degree of intrusion or future development that would interfere with the essential scenic
quality of the land or with the governmental conservation policy that is being furthered by the donation. See § 1.170A-I4(e)(27)
• for rules relating to inconsistent use.
?a¢e t
a~,~.. ✓ ~.a,V,V,1a,a.vaY',.l~,~KUa.u a.V1Na:1 "Vol ~a~. utu[wuaavuO.
Copyright 1998. CCH tncorporated
(vi) Relationship of reauire:nents--(A) Clearly delineated governmental policy and significant public benefit.
Although the requirements of "clearly delineated governmental policy" and "significant public benefit" must be met
independently, for purposes of this section the two requirements may also be related. The more specuic the governmental policy
• with respect to the particular site to be protected, the more likely the governmental decision, by itself, will tend to establish the
significant public benefit associated with the donation. For example, while a statute in State X permitting preferential
assessment for farmland is, by definition, governmental policy, it is distinguishable from a state statute, accompanied by
appropriations, naming the X River as a valuable resource and articulating the Legislative policy that the X River and the
relativeiv natural quality of its surroundings be protected. On these facts, an open space easement on farmland in State X would
have to demonstrate additional factors to establish "significant public benefiC The specificity of the legislative mandate to
protect the X River, however, would by itself tend to establish the significant public benefit associated with an open space
easement on land fronting the X River.
(B) .Scenic enjoyment and significant public benefit. With respect to the relationship between the requirements of
"scenic enjoyment" and "signifcant public benefit," since the degrees of scenic enjoyment offered by a variety of open space
easements are subjective and not as easily delineated as are increasingly specific levels of governmental policy, the significant
public benefit of preserving a scenic view must be independently established in ail cases.
(C) Donations nrau satisfy more than one test. In some cases, open space easements may be both for scenic
enjoyment and pursuant to a clearly delineated governmental policy. For example, the preservation ofa particular scenic view
identified as part of a scenic landscape inventory by a rigorous governmental review process will meet the tests of both
paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(A) and (d)(4)(i)(B) of this section. v
(5) Historic preservation--(i) In general. The donation of a qualified real property interest to preser.,e an historically
important land area or a certified historic structure will meet the conservation purposes test of this section. When restrictions to
preserve a building or land area within a registered historic district pe ut future development on the site, a deduction will be
allowed under this section only if the terms of the restrictions require that such development conform with appropriate local,
state, or Federal standards for construction or rehabilitation within the district. See also, § 1.170A-14(li)(3)(ii).
(ii) Historically important land area. The term "historically important land'area7 includes:
• _ (A) An independently significant land area including any related historic resources (for example, an archaeological
site or a Civil War battlefield with related monuments, bridges, cannons, or houses) that meets the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation in 36 CFR 60.4 (Pub. L. 39-665, $0 Star 915);
(B) Any land area within a registered historic-district including any buildings on the land area that can reasonably be
considered as contributing to the significance of the district; and
(C) Any land area (including related historic resources) adjacent to a property listed individually in the National
Register or Historic Places (but not within a registered historic district) in a case where the physical or environmental features of
the land area contribute to the historic or cultural integrity of the property.
(iii) Cer•tifted historic structure--(A) Definition. The term °certified historic structure,- for purposes of this section,
means any building, structure or land area which is-
(A) Listed in the National Register, or
(B) Located in a registered historic district (as defined in section 48(g)(3)(B)) and is certified by the Secretary of the
Interior (pursuant to 36 CFR 67.4) to the Secretary of the Treasury as being of historic significance to the district
A "structure" for purposes of this section means any structure, whether or not it is depreciable. Accordingiv. easements on
private residences may qualify under this section. In addition, a structure would be considered to be a certified historic structure
if it were certified either at the time the transfer was made or at the due date (including extensions) for filing the doper's re urn
for the taxable year in which the contribution was made.
(iv) Access--(A) In order for a conservation contribution described in section 170(h)(4)(A)(iv) and this paragraph
(d)(5) to be deductible, some visual public access to the donated property is required. In the case of an historically important
• land area, the entire property need not be visible to the public for a donation to qualify under this section. However, the public
benefit from the donation may be insufficient to qualify for a deduction if only a small portion of the property is so visible.
Pag-z 5
J Copyright 1998, CCH Incorporated
where die historic land area or certified historic structure which is the subject of the donation is not visible from a public way
die structure is hidden from view by a wall or shrubberv, the structure is too far from the public :vav, or rote-ior
characteristics and features of the structure are the subject of the easement), the terns of the easement must be such that the
generai public is given the opportunity on a regular basis to view the characteristics and features of the property- which are
• preserved by the easement to the extent consistent with the nature and condition of the property.
(B) Factors to be considered in determining the type and amount of public access required under, paragraph
(d)(3)(w)(A) of this section include the historical significance of the donated property, the nature of the features that are the
subject of the easement, the remoteness or accessibility of the site of the donated property, the possibility of physical hazards to
the public visiting the property (for example, an unoccupied structure in a dilapidated condition), the tent to which public
access would be an unreasonable intrusion on any privacy interests of individuals living on the propern-, the degree to which
public access would impair the preservation interests which are the subject of the donation, and the availability of opportunities
for die public to view the property by means other than visits to the site.
(C) The amount of access afforded the public by the donation of an easement shalt be determined with reference to
die amount of access permitted by the terms of the easement which are established by the donor, rather than the amount of
access actually provided by die donee organization. However, if the donor is aware of any facts indicating that the amount of
access that die donee organization will provide is significantly less than the amount of access permitted under the terms of the
easement, then the amount of access afforded the public shall be determined with reference to this lesser amount.
(v) ELamples. The provisions of paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section may be illustrated by die following examples:
Example (I). A-and his family live in a house in a certified historic district in the State of X. The entire house,
including its interior, has architectural features representing classic Victorian period architecture. A donates an exterior and
interior easement on the property to a qualified organization but continues to five in the house with ;his family. A`s house is
surrounded by a high stone wall which obscures the public's view of it from the street. Pursuant to the terms of dre easement the
house may be opened to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on one Sunday in May and one Sunday in November each year
for house and garden tours. These tours are to be under the supervision of the donee and open to members of the general public
upon payment of a small fee. In addition, under the terms of the easement, the donee organization is given the tight to
photograph the interior and exterior of the house and distribute such photographs to magazines, newsletters. or other publicly
available publications. The terms of the easement also permit persons affriiated with educational organizations, professional
• architectural associations, and historical societies to make an appointment through the donee organization to study the property.
The donor is not aware of anv facts indicating that the public access to be provided by the donee organization will be
significantly less than that permitted by the terms of the easement The 2 opportunities for public visits per year, when combined
with the ability of the general public to view the architectural characteristics and features that are the subject of the easement
through photographs, the opportunity for scholarly study of the property, and the fact that the house is used as an occupied
residence, will enable the donation to satisfy the requirement of public access.
Erample B owns an unoccupied farmhouse built in the 1840's and located on a property that is adjacent to a Civil
War battlefield. During the Civil War the farmhouse was used as quarters for Union troops. The battlefield is visited year round
by die general public. The condition of the farmhouse is such that the safety of visitors will not be jeopardized and opening it to
die public will not result in significant deterioration. The farmhouse is not visible from the battlefield or any public way. It is
accessible only by way of a private road owned by B. B donates a conservation easement on the farmhouse to a qualified
organization. The terms of the easement provide that the donee organization may open the property (via B's road) to the general
public on four weekends each year from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The donation does not meet the public access requirement
because the farmhouse is safe, unoccupied, and easily accessible to the general public who have come to the site to visit Civil
War historic land areas (and related resources), but will only be open to the public on four weekends each year. However, the
donation would meet the public access requirement if the terms of the easement permitted the donee organization to open the
property to the public every other weekend during the year and the donor is not aware of any facts indicating that the donee
organization will provide significantly less access than that permitted.
(e) Lrclusively for conservation purposes--(1) In general_ To meet the requirements of this section, a donation must be
exclusively for conservation purposes. See paragraphs (c)(1) and (g)(1) through (g)(6)(ii) of this section. A deduction will not
be denied under this section when incidental benefit inures to the donor merely as a result of conservation restrictions limiting
die uses to which the donor's property may be put.
(2) Inconsistenr use. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, a deduction will not be allowed if the
contribution would accomplish one of the enumerated conservation purposes but would permit destruction of other significant
i conservation interests. For example, the preservation of farmland pursuant to a state program for flood prevention and control
Page 6
Cop}Tieht 1998, CCH Incorporated
would not qualiA, under paragraph (d)(4) of this section if under the terms of the contribution a significant naturally occurnns
ecosystem could be injured or destroved by the use of pesticides in the operation of the farm. However, this requirement is not
intended to prohibit uses of the property, such as selective timber harvesting or selective farming if, under the circumstances,
those uses do not impair significant conservation interests.
(3) lnconsistent use permitted. A use that is destructive of conservation interests will be permitted only if such use is
necessary for the protection of the conservation interests that are the subject of the contribution. For example, a deduction for the
donation of an easement to preserve an archaeological site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places will not be
disallowed if site excavation consistent with sound archaeological practices may impair a scenic view of which the land is a part.
A donor may continue a pre-eXisting use of the property that does not conflict with the conservation purposes of the gift
(t) Eranrples. The provisions of this section relating to conservation purposes may be illustrated by the following examples.
Example (1). State S contains many large tract forests that are desirable recreation and scenic areas for the general public.
The forests' scenic values attract millions of people to [he State. However, due to the increasing intensity of land development in
State S, the continued existence of forestland parcels greater than 45 acres is threatened. I grants a perpetual easement on a
100-acre parcel of forestland that is part of one of the State's scenic areas to a qualifying organization. The easement imposes
restrictions on the use of the parcel for the purpose of maintaining its scenic values. The restrictions include a requirement that
the parcel be maintained forever as open space devoted exclusively to conservation purposes and wildlife protection, and that
there be no commercial. industrial, residential, or other development use of such parcel. The law of State S recognizes a limited
public right to enter private land, particularly for recreational pursuits, unless such land is posted or the landowner objects. The
easement specifically restricts the landowner from posting the parcel, or from objecting, thereby maintaining public access to the
parcel according to the custom of the State. J's parcel provides the opportunity for the public to enjoy the use of the property and
appreciate its scenic values. Accordingly, J's donation qualifies for a deduction under this section.
Example (2). A qualified conservation organization owns Greenacre in fee as a nature preserve. Greenacre contains a high
quality example of a tall grass prairie ecosystem. Farmacre, an operating- farm, adjoins Greenacre and is a compatible buffer to
the nature preserve. Conversion of Farmacre to a more intense use, such as a housing development, would adversely affect the
continued use of Greenacre as a nature preserve because of human traffic generated by the development. The owner of Farmacr e
donates an easement preventing any future development on Farmacre to the qualified conservation organization for conservation
purposes. Normal agricultural uses will be allowed on Farmacre. Accordingly, the donation qualifies for a deduction under this
• - section.
Example (3). H owns Greenacre, a 900-acre parcel of woodland, rolling pasture, and orchards on the crest of a mountain. All
of Greenacre is clearly visible from a nearby national park. Because of the strict enforcement of an applicable zoning plan, the
highest and best use of Greenacre is as a subdivision of 40-acre tracts. H wishes to donate a scenic easement on Greenacre to a
qualifying conservation organization, but H would like to reserve the right to subdivide Greenacre into 90-acre parcels with no
more than one single-family home allowable on each parcel. Random building on the property, even as little as one home for
each 90 acres, would destroy the scenic character of the view. Accordingly, no deduction would be allowable under this section.
Example (4). Assume the same facts as in example except that not all of Greenacre is visible from the park and the deed
of easement allows for limited cluster development of no more than five nine-acre clusters (with four houses on each cluster)
located in areas generally not visible from the national park and subject to site and building plan approval by the donee
organization in order to preserve the scenic view from the park. The donor and the donee have already identified sites where
limited cluster development would not be visible from the park or would not impair the view. Owners of homes in the clusters
will not have any rights with respect to the surrounding Greenacre property that are not also available to the general public.
Accordingly, the donation qualifies for a deduction under this section.
Example (5). In order to protect State S's declining open space that is suited for agricultural use from increasing
development pressure that has led to a marked decline in such open space, the Legislature of State S passed a statute authorizing
the purchase of "agricultural land development rights" on open acreage. Agricultural land development rights allow the State to
place agricultural presenation restrictions on land designated as worthy of protection in order to preserve open space and farm
resources. Agricultural preservation restrictions prohibit or limit construction or placement of buildings except those used for
agricultural purposes or dwellings used for family living by the farmer and his family and employees; removal of mineral
substances in any manner that adversely afTects the land's agricultural potential; or other uses detrimental to retention of the land
for agricultural use. Money has been appropriated for this program and some landowners have in fact sold their "agricultural
land development rights" to State S. K owns and operates a small dairy farm in State S bated in an area designated by the
• Legislature as worthy of protection. K desires to preserve his farm for agricultural purposes in perpetuity. Rather than selling the
development rights to State S, K grants to a qualified organization an agricultural preservation restriction on his property in the
Pate 7
t.upyngnt :yva, :7 cncorporateu
form of a conservation easemenL K reserves to himself, his heirs and assigns the right to manage the farm consistent with sound
agricultural and management practices. The preservation of K's land is pursuant to a clearly delineated governmental policy of
preserving open space available for agricultural use, and will vield a significant public benefit by preserving open space against
increasing development pressures. Accordingly, a deduction is allowed under this section.
(g) Enforceable in perpetuity-(1) In general In the case of any donation under this section, any interest in the property
-etatned by the donor (and the donor's successors in interest) must be subject to legally enforceable restrictions (for example, by
recordation in the land records of the jurisdiction in which he property is located) that will prevent uses of the retained interest
inconsistent with the conservation purposes of the donation. in the case of a contribution of a remainder interest, the contribution
will not qualify if the tenants, whether they are tenants for life or a tern of years, can use the property in a manner that
diminishes the conservation values which are intended to be protected by the contributions.
(2) Protection ofa conservation purpose in case of donation of property subject to a mortgage. In the case of
conservation contributions made after Februarv 13, 1986, no deduction will be permitted under this section for an interest in
property which is subject to a mortgage unless the mortgagee subordinates its rights in the property to the right of the qualified
organization to enforce the conservation purposes of the gift in perpetuity. For conservation contributions made prior to
February 14, 1986, the requirement of section 170(h)(5)(A) is satisfied in the case of mortgaged property (with respect to which
die mortgagee has not subordinated its rights) only if the donor can demonstrate that the conservation purpose is protected in
perpetuity without subordination of the mortgagee's rights-
(3) Remote future event. A deduction shall not be disallowed under section 170(f)(3)(13)(iii) and this section merely
because the interest which passes to, or is vested in, the donee organization may be defeated by the performance of some act or
the happening of some event, if on the date of the gift it appears that the possibility that such act or event will occur is so remote
as to be negligible. See paragraph (e) of § 1.170A-i. For example, a state's statutory requirement that use restrictions must be
rerecorded every 30 years to remain enforceable shalt not, by itself, render an easement nonperpetuat.
(4) Retention of qualified mineral interest--(i) In general. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (0)(4)(11) of this
section, the requirements of this section are not met and no deduction shall be allowed in the case of a contribution of any
interest when there is a retention by any person of a qualified mineral interest (as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(1) of this section) if
at any time there may be extractions or removal of minerals by any surface mining method. Moreover, in the case of a qualified
mineral interest gift, the requirement that the conservation purposes be protected in perpetuity is not satisfied if any method of
• mining that is inconsistent with the particular conservation purposes of a contribution is permitted at any time. See also
§ 1.170A- 14(e)(2). However, a deduction under this section will not be denied in the case of certain methods of mining that may
have limited, localized impact on the real property but that are not irremediably destructive of significant conservation interests.
For example, a deduction will not be denied in a case where production facilities are concealed or compatible with existing
topography and landscape and when surface alteration is to be restored to its original state.
(ii) Exception for qualified conservation contributions after July 1984.-(A) A contribution made after July 18, 1984,
of a qualified real property interest described in' section l 70(h)(2)(A) shall not be disqualified under [he first sentence of
paragraph (g)(4)(1) of this section if the following requirements are satisfied.
(1) The ownership of the surface estate and mineral interest were separated before June 13, 1976, and remain so
separated up to and including the time of the contribution.
) The present owner of the mineral interest is not a person whose relationship to the owner of the surface
estate is described at the time of the contribution in section 267(b) or section 707(b), and
(3 ) The probability of extraction or removal of mineral's by any surface mining method is so remote as to be
negligible.
Whether the probability of extraction or removal of minerals by surface mining is so remote as to be negligible is a question of
tact and is to be made on a case by case basis. Relevant factors to be considered in determining if the probability of extraction or
removal of minerals by surface minting is so remote as to be negligible include: geological, geophysical or economic data
showing the absence of mineral reserves on the property, or the lack of commercial feasibility at the time of the contribution of
surface mining the mineral interest.
(B) If the ownership of the surface estate and mineral interest first became separated after June 12, 1976, no
deduction is permitted for a contribution under this section unless surface mining on the property is completely prohibited.
?age 3
(iii) Examples. The provisions of paragraph (g)(4)(1) and (ii) of this section may be iilwtrated by the following
examp ies.
Erampie (1). K owns 5,000 acres of bottomiand hardwood propern, along a major watershed system in the southern
part of the United States. Agencies within the Department of the Interior have determined that southern bottomiand hardwoods
are a rapidly diminishing resource and a critical ecosystem in the south because of the intense pressure to cut the trees and
convert the land to agricultural use. These agencies have further determined (and have indicated in correspondence with K) that
bottomiand hardwoods provide a superb habitat for numerous species and play an important role in controlling floods and in
purifying rivers. K donates to a qualified organization his entire interest in this property other than his interest in the gas and oil
deposits that have been identified under K's property. K covenants and can ensure that, although drilling for gas and oil on the
property may have some temporary localized impact on the real property, the drilling will not interfere with the overall
conservation purpose of the gift, which is to protect the unique bottomiand hardwood ecosystem. Accordingly, the donation
qualifies for a deduction under this section.
Eratnple Assume the same facts as in example (1), except that in 1979, K sells the mineral interest to A, an
unrelated person, in an arm's-length transaction, subject to a recorded prohibition on the removal of any minerals by any surface
mining method and a recorded prohibition against any mining technique that will harm the bottomiand hardwood ecosystem.
After the sale to A K donates a qualified real property interest to a qualified organization to protect the bottomiand hardwood
ecosystem. Since at the time of the transfer. surface mining and any mining technique that will harm the bottomiand hardwood
ecosystem are completely proihibited, tie donation qualifies for a deduction under this section.
(5) Protection of conservation purpose where taxpayer reserves certain rights. -(I) Documentation. In the case of a
donation made after Febrsary 13, 1936, of any qualified real property interest when the donor reserves rights the exercise of
which may impair the conservation interests associated with the property, for a deduction to be allowable under this section the
donor must make available to the donee, prior to the time the donation is made, documentation sufficient to establish the
condition of the property at the time of the gift. Such documentation is desiped to protect the conservation interests associated
with the property, which although protected in perpetuity by the easement, could be adversely affected by the exercise of the
reserved rights. Such documentation may include:
(A) The appropriate survey maps from the United States Geological Survey, showing the property line and other
contiguous or nearby protected areas;
- (B) A map of the area drawn to scale showing ail existing man-made improvements or incursions (such as roads,
buildings, fences, or gravel pits), vegetation and identification of flora and fauna (including, for example, rare species locations,
animal breeding and roosting areas, and migration routes), land use history (including present uses and recent past
disturbances), and distinct natural features (such as large trees and aquatic areas);
(C) An aerial photograph of the property at an appropriate scale taken as close as possible to the date the donation
is made; and
(D) On-site photographs taken at appropriate locations on the property.
If the terms of the donation contain restrictions with regard to a particular natural resource to be protected, such as water quality
or air quality, the condition of the resource at or near the time of the gift must be established. The documentation, including the
maps and photographs, must be accompanied by a statement signed by the donor and a representative of the donee clearly
referencing the documentation and in substance saying "This natural resources inventory is an accurate representation of (the
protected property] at the time of the transfer."
(ii) Donee 's right to inspection and legal remedies. In the case of any donation referred to in paragraph (g)(5)(1) of
this section, the donor must agree to notify the donee, in writing, before exercising any reserved right, e.g., the right to extract
certain minerals which may have an adverse impact on the conservation interests associated with the qualified real property
interest. The terms of the donation must provide a right of the donee to enter the property at reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the property to determine it there is compliance with the terms of the donation. Additionally, the terms of the donation
must provide a right of the donee to enforce the conservation restrictions by appropriate legal proceedings including, but not
limited co, the right to require the restoration of the property to its condition at the time of the donation.
(6) Extinguishment. (1) In general. If a subsequent unexpected change in the conditions surrounding the property that is
the subject of a donation under this paragraph can make impossible or impractical the continued use of the property for
convey ation purposes, the conservation purpose can nonetheless be treated as protected in pe petuitt if the restrictions are
Paee 9
extinguished by judicial proceeding and all of the donee's proceeds (determined under paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section) from
a subsequent sale or exchange of the property are used by the donee organization iii a manner consistent with the conservation
purposes of the original contribution.
(ii) Proceeds. In he case of a donation made aver February 13, 1986, for a deduction to be allowed under this section,
at the time of the gift the donor must agree that the donation of the perpetual conservation restriction gives rise to a property
right, rmmediateiv vested in the donee organization, with a fair market value that is at least equal to the proportionate value that
the perpetual conservation restriction at the time of the gift bears to the value of the property as a whole at that time. See
§ 1.170A- i 4(h)(3)(iii) relating to the allocation of basis. For purposes of this paragraph (g)(6)(ii), that proportionate value of the
donee's property rights shall remain constant. Accordingly, when a change in conditions gives rise to the extinguishment of a
perpetual conservation restriction under paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section, the donee organization, on a subsequent sale,
exchange,or involuntary conversion of the subject property, must be entitled to a portion of the proceeds at least equal to that
proportionate value of the perpetual conservation restriction, unless state law provides that the donor is entitled to the full
proceeds from the conversion without regard to the terms of the prior perpetual conservation restriction.
(h) ✓alnation--; 1) Entire interest of donor other than qualified mineral interest. The value of the contribution under section
170 in the case of a contribution of a taxpayer's entire interest in property other than a qualified mineral interest is the fair
market value of the surface rights in the property contributed. The value of the contribution shall be computed without regard to
the mineral rights. See paragraph (h)(4), example (I), of this section.
(2) Remainder interest in real properry. In the case of a contribution of any remainder interest in real property, section
170(f)(4) provides that in determining the value of such interest for purposes of section 170, depreciation and depletion of such
property shall be taken into. account. See § 170A-12. In the case of the contribution of a remainder interest for conservation
purposes, he current fair market value of the property (against which the limitations of § 1.170A-12 are applied) must take into
account any pre-existing or contemporaneously recorded rights limiting, for conservation purposes, he uses to which the subject
property may be put.
(3) Perpetual conservation restriction--(i) In general. The value of the contribution under section 170 in the case of a
charitable contribution of a perpetual conservation restriction is the fair market value of the perpetual conservation restriction at
the time of the contribution. See § 1.170A-7(c). If there is a substantial record of sales of easements comparable to the donated
easement (such as purchases pursuant to a governmental program), the fair market value of the donated easement is based on
the sales prices of such comparable easements. If no substantial record of market-place sales is available to use as a meaningful
or valid comparison, as a general rule (but not necessarily in all cases) the fair market value of a perpetual conservation
restriction is equal to the difference between the fair market value of the property it encumbers before the granting of the
restriction and the fair market value of the encumbered property after the granting of the restriction. The amount of the deduction
in the case of a charitable contribution of a perpetual conservation restriction covering a portion of the contiguous property
owned by a donor and the donor's family as defined in section 267(e)(4) is the difference between the fair market value of the
entire contiguous parcel of property before and after the granting of the restriction. If the granting of a perpetual conservation
restriction after January 14, 1986, has the effect of increasing the value of any other property owned by the donor or a related
person, the amount of the deduction for the consdi-ration contribution shall be reduced by the amount of the increase in the value
of the other property, whether or not such property is contiguous. It as a result of the donation of a perpetual conservation
restriction, the donor or a related person receives, or can reasonably expect to receive, financial or economic benefits that are
greater than hose that will inure to the general public from the transfer, no deduction is allowable under this section. However,
if the donor or a related person receives, or can reasonably expect to receive, a financial or economic benefit that is substantial,
but it is clearly shown that the benefit is less than the amount of the transfer, then a deduction under this section is allowable for
the excess of the amount transferred over the amount of the financial or economic benefit received or reasonably expected to be
received by the donor or the related person. For purposes of this paragraph (h)(3)(i), related person shall have the same meaning
as in either section 267(b) or section 707(b). (See example (10) of paragraph (h)(4) of this section.)
(ii) Fair marAw value of property before and after restriction. If before and after valuation is used, the fair market
value of the property before contribution of the conservation restriction must take into account not only the current use of the
property but also an objective assessment of how immediate or remote the likelihood is that the property, absent the restriction,
would in fact be developed, as well as any effect from zoning, conservation, or historic preservation laws that already restrict the
property's potential highest and best use. Further, there may be instances where the grant of a conservation restriction may have
no material effect on the value of the property or may in fact serve to enhance, rather than reduce, the value of property. in such
instances, no deduction would be allowable. In the case of a conservation restriction that allows for any development, however
limited, on the property to be protected, the fair market value of the property after contribution of the restriction must take into
account the effect of the development. In the case of a conservation easement such as an easement on a certified historic
structure, the fair market value of the property after contribution of the restriction must take into account the amount of access
Page 10
permitted by the terms of the easement. Additionally, if before and after valuation is used, an appraisal of the property after
contribution of [he restriction must take into account the effect of restrictions that will result in a reduction of the potential fair
market value represented by highest and best use but will, nevertheless, permit uses of the property that will increase its fair
market value above that represented by the property's current use. The value of a perpetual conservation restriction shall not be
reduced by reason of the existence of restrictions on transer designed solely to ensure that the conservation restriction will be
dedicated to conservation purposes. See § 1.170A-14(c)(3). v
(iii) A1locarion of basis. In the case of the donation of a qualified real property interest for conserration purposes, the
basis of the property retained by the donor must be adjusted by the elimination of that part of the total basis of the prone that
is properly allocable to the qualified real property interest granted. The amount of the basis that is allocable to the qualified real
property interest shall bear the same ratio to the total basis of :he property as the fair market value of the qualified real property
interest bears to the fair market value of the property before the g anting of the qualified real property interest. When a taxpayer
donates to a qualifying conservation organization an easement on a structure %vidm respect to which deductions are taken for
depreciation, [he reduction required by this paragraph (h)(3)(10 in the basis of the property retained by die taxpayer must be
allocated between the structure and the underlying land.
(4) E.-:aurples. The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following examples. In examples illustrating the
value or deductibility of donations, the applicable restrictions and limitations of § 1. 17 OA-4, with respect to reduction in amount
of charitable contributions of certain appreciated property, and § 1.170A-3, with respect to limitations on charitable deductions
by Individuals, must also be taken into account.
E.::am'vie (1). A owns Coldacre, a property adjacent to a state park. A wants to donate Goldacre to the state to be used as
part of the park:, but A wants to reserve a qualified. mineral interest in the property, to exploit currently and to devise at death.
The fair market value of the surface rights in Goldacre is 5200,000 and the fair market value of the mineral rights is $100,000.
in order to ensure that the quality of the park will not be degraded, restrictions must be imposed on the right to extract the
minerals that reduce the fair market value of the mineral rights to 580,000. Under this section, the value of the contribution is
5200,000 (the value of the surface rights).
Example In 1984, B, who is 62, donates a remainder interest in Greenacre to a qualifying organization for
conservation purposes. Greenacre is a tract of 200 acres of undeveloped woodland that is valued at 5200,000 at its highest and
best use. Under § 1.170A-12(b), the value of a remainder interest in real property following one life is determined under
_ §25.2512-5 of this chapter (Gift Tax Regulations). (See §25?512-5A of this chapter with respect to the valuation of annuities,
interests for life or term of years, and remainder or reversionary interests transferred before December 1, 1983). Accordingly,
the value of the remainder interest, and thus the amount eligible for an income tax deduction under section 170(f), is S55. 96
(5200,000 x.27998).
Example (3). Assume the same facts as in example except that Greenacre is B's 200-acre estate with a home built
during the colonial period. Some of the acreage around the home is cleared; the balance of Greenacre, except for access roads, is
wooded and undeveloped. See section 170(f)(3)(B)(i). However, B would like Greenacre to be maintained in its current state
after his death, so he donates a remainder interest in Greenacre to a qualifying organization for conservation purposes pursuant
to sections 1', 0(0(3)(B)(iii) and (h)(2)(B). At the time of the gift the land has a value of $200,000 and the house has a value of
S 100,000. The value of the remainder interest, and thus the amount eligible for an income tax deduction under section 170(f), is
computed pursuant to § 1.170A-12. See § 1.170A-12(b)(3).
Example (4). Assume the same facts as in example except that at age 62 instead of donating a remainder interest B
donates an easement in Greenacre to a qualifying organization for conservation purposes. The fair market value of Greenacre
after the donation is reduced to $110,000. Accordingly, the value of the easement, and thus the amount eligible for a deduction
under section 170(f), is $90,000 (5200,000 less $I 10,000).
Example (3). Assume the same facts as in example (4), and assume that three years later, at age 65, B decides to donate a
remainder interest in Greenacre to a qualifying organization for conservation purposes. Increasing real estate values in the area
have raised the fair market value of Greenacre (subject to the easement) to S 130,000. Accordingly, the value of the remainder
interest, and thus the amount eligible for a deduction under section 170(1), is 541,639 ($130,000 x.32030).
Example (6). Assume the same facts as in example (2), except that at the time of the donation of a remainder interest in
Greenacre, B also donates an easement to a different qualifying organization for conservation purposes. Based on all the facts
and circumstances, the value of the easement is determined to be S 100,000. Therefore, the value of the property after the
easement is S 100,000 and the value of the remainder interest, and thus the amount eligible for deduction under section 170(f), is
527,998 (S 100.000 x.-27998).
Example (i). C owns Greenacre, a 200-acre estate containing a house built during the colonial period. At its highest and
best use, for home development, the fair market value of Greenacre is 5300,000. C donates an easement (to maintain the house
and Ore.-nacre in their current state) to a qualifying organization for conservation purposes. The fair market value of Greenacr e
after the donation is reduced to 5125,000. Accordingly, the value of the easement and the amount eligible for a deduction under
• section 1700 is S 175,000 (5300,000 less S 125,000).
Example (8). Assume the same facts as in example (7), and assume that three years later, C decides to donate a remainder
interest in Greenacre to a qualifying organization for conservation purposes. Increasing real estate values in the area have raised
the fair market value of Greenacre to S I S0,000. Assume that because of the perpetual easement prohibiting any development of
the land, the value of the house is S 120,000 and the value of the land is 560.000. The value of the remainder interest, and thus
the amount eligible for an income tax deduction under section 1700, is computed pursuant to 1.170A-12. See
§ 1.170A- 12(b)(3).
Example (9). D owns property with a basis of 520,000 and a fair market value of $80,000. D donates to a qualifying
organization an easement for conservation purposes that is determined under this section to have a fair market value of 560,000.
The amount of basis allocable to the easement is S 15,000 (560,000/580,000 = S 15,000520,000). Accordingly, the basis of the
property is reduced to 55,000 ($20,000 minus 515,000).
Example (10). F owns 10 one-acre lots that are currently woods and parkland. The fair market value of each of E's lots is
5 15,000 and the basis of each lot is 53,000.E grants to the county a perpetual easement for conservation purposes to use and
maintain eight of the acres as a public park and to restrict any future development on those eight acres. As a result of the
restrictions, the value of the eight acres is reduced to 51,000 an acre. However, by perpetually restricting development on this
portion of the land, E has ensured that the two remaining acres will always be bordered by parkland, thus increasing their fair
market value to 522,500 each. If the eight acres represented all of E's land, the fair market value of the easement would be
S 112,000, an amount equal to the fair market value of the land before the granting of the easement (8 x S 15,000 = S 120,000)
minus the fair market value of the encumbered land after the granting of the easement (8 x S 1,000 = S8,000). However, because
the easement only covered a portion of the taxpayer's contiguous land, the amount of the deduction under section 170 is reduced
to 597,000 (3156,000 - 553,000), that is, the difference between the fair market value of the entire tract of land before
(S 150,000) and after ((8 x S 1,000) + (2 x 522,500)) the granting of the easement.
Ekanrole (11). Assume the same facts as in example (10). Since the easement covers a portion of E's land, only the basis
M of that portion is adjusted. Therefore, the amount of basis allocable to the easement is 522,400 ((8 x S3,000) x
(S 1 12,0001$120,000)). Accordingly, the basis of the eight acres encumbered by the easement is reduced to 51,600 (524,000 -
522,400), or 5200 for each acre. The basis of the two remaining acres is not affected by the donation.
Example (13). F owns and uses as professional offices a two-story building that lies within a registered historic district.
F's building is an outstanding example of period architecture with a fair market value of S 125,000. Restricted to its current use,
which is the highest and best use of the property without making changes to the facade, the building and lot would have a fair
market value of 5100,000, of which $80,000 would be allocable to the building and $20,000 would be allocable to the lot. F's
basis in the property is 550,000, of which 540,000 is allocable to the building and S 10,000 is allocable to the lot. F's
neighborhood is a mix of residential and commercial uses, and it is possible that F (or another owner) could enlarge the building
for more extensive commercial use, which is its highest and best use. However, this would require changes to the facade. F
would like to donate to a qualifying preservation organization an easement restricting any changes to the facade and promising
to maintain the facade in perpetuity. The donation would quality for a deduction under this section. The fair market value of the
easement is S25,000 (the fair market value of the property before the easement, S 125,000, minus the fair market value of the
property after the easement, $100,000). Pursuant to § 1.170A-14(h)(3)(iii), the basis allocable to the easement is $10,000 and
the basis of the underlying property (building and lot) is reduced to $40,000.
(i) Substantiation requirement. If a taxpayer makes a qualified conservation contribution and claims a deduction, the
taxpayer must maintain written records of the fair market value of the underlying property before and after the donation and the
conservation purpose furthered by the donation and such information shall be stated in the taxpayer's income tax return if
required by the return or its instructions. See also § 1.170A-13(c) (relating to substantiation requirements for deductions in
excess of S5,000 for charitable contributions made after 1984), and section 6659 (relating to additions to tart in the case of
valuation overstatements).
(00] Effective date. Except as otherwise provided in § 1.170A-14(g)(4)(ii), this section applies only to contributions made
on or after December 18, 1980. Meg. 61.170A-14
Page 12
Qualified Consen,ation Contributions
A charitable deduction is allowed for a qualified conservation contribution of a partial interest in property. A charitable
conservation contribution is:
• the entire interest of the donor, other than his interest in subsurface oil, gas or other minerals;
• a remainder interest; or
• a restriction, such as an easement, in perpetuity on the use to which the property may be put.44
44 IRC So 170(n(3)(B)(ii) , (iii) 2031(c 2055(e)(2) , 2522(c)Q .
Tile rules and definitions for qualified conservation contributions are discussed in Chapter A: 17.
The estate or lift tax charitable deduction may be available even if the bequest or gift does not satisfy the incomex
conservation purpose requirement` 5 See Chapter A: 17.
'5 IRC S,s 2055(1)1. 2522(4 .
The executor of a decedent dying after 1997 can elect to exclude from the gross estate part of the value of land subject to a
qualified conservation easement. The exclusion can be as much as 40 percent of the value of land subject to the easement, but it
is reduced by any deduction taken for a qualified conservation contribution.46 Sze Chapter N:7 for discussion of the exclusion
for qualified conservation easements.
46 IRC 62031(c) .
t
Pa¢e I
Conservation Gift of Qualified Real Property
On the donation of a qualified real property interest to a qualified charitable organization for conservation purposes, the basis
of the property retained by the donor is reduced by the portion allocable to the qualified real property interest granted. The
amount of the basis allocable to the qualified real property interest is the percentage of the basis equal to the ratio that the fair
market value of the qualified real property interest bears to the fair market value of the total property before the transfer. When a
taxpayer donates an easement on a structure for which depreciation deductions are taken, the reduction in basis of the prope~;r
retained by the taxpaver must be allocated between the structure and the underlying land.' 19 See Chapter A: 17. These
provisions appiv only to contributions made after December 17, 1980.`do
119ReIz 61.170.1-1--Wh)(3) (iii).
120 Rey a 1.170.4-146).
Example: Bradley owns property with a basis of $20,000 and a fair market value (FMV) of 580,000. Bradley donates to a
qualifying organization an easement for conservation purposes with an FMV of $60,000. The amount of basis allocable to
die easement is S 15,000 ($60,000/SS0.000 x 520,000). The basis of the property retained by Bradley is reduced to 55,000
(520,000 less S 15,000 transferred)."'
111 Ree 61.170A-l ~({r)(!) , r (9).
Page S
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix G. Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's Scenic
and Natural Areas Grant Program.
Application To receive an application, please submit an Annlica~ Lion Req»Ptt Form. We recommend
that the Application Request Form be submitted no later than two months before the
application deadline. The complete application is due on March 31, 1998 to be eligible
for this funding cycle.
Program purpose To increase, protect and enhance natural and scenic areas.
How it works Provides state grants to local units of government for up to 50% of the cost of acquisition
of natural and scenic areas.
Eligible applicants Cities, counties, townships and school districts.
Eligible projects Eligible projects include fee title acquisition and permanent easement acquisition. Minimal
betterment activities are eligible as part of the proposed acquisition project and include
interpretive, educational or boundary signing and protective fencing.
Minimum Project proposals must have a total project cost of at least $10,000. Active projects will need
requirements to be closed-out before an additional proposal can be submitted.
Grant amount A maximum of 50% of the total eligible project costs not to exceed a maximum grant of
$200,000. Costs must be incurred and paid for before reimbursement can be made.
Local match Applicants must be able to fund at least 50% of the total project costs.
Grant awards The Department of Natural Resources will review and rank applications during the spring
of 1998. Grant awards will be announced in the summer of 1998.
Project period Funded projects must begin promptly after an agreement has been completed between the
State of Minnesota and the applicant. All components of the project must be completed by
December 31, 2000.
Further Information Grants Manager (see enclosed Grant Manager Assignment List))
Local Grants Program
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Planning, Box 10
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4010
FAX: 612/296-6047
1044 I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Appendix H . Summary data tables
Covertype
ff
Number of parcels with Hand Meadow Sho nd Other`
development otential
Vacant 56 13 16 11 2
Occupied 35 9 20 8 1
Total 91 22 36 19 3
Zoning
Number of parcels with a - -
development potential
Vacant 28 26 22 11 1
Occupied 7 16 1,1 13 0
Total 35 42 33 24 1
Number of parcels with 1"-21 RR- -1 f
development potential.
V, Aw-
Vacant 3 1 2 1 2 2
Occupied 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 3 1 2 1 2 3
Open Space
Number of parcels with development potential Vacant Occupied Total
that:
have no public, permanent open space in 1/2 37 20 57
section
are immediately adjacent to natural area or 17 15 32
park
are greater than 1/2 mile to nearest public, 40 8 48
permanent, open space
are greater than 1 mile to nearest public, 0 16 16
permanent, open space
1054
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix L Map of parcels with development potential in
Shorewood
i
1064
7 ~ 1
Y to
Q Q it t 3 A Y
r O - ~j Z1~ l ~ L )
T
D O~ t S~cpC~'~ ' Y
y Fr~1 ~ ~ O~S~ ~~a g w rln .wrm ~c
F-y O a ~
~ x C 31'
v~
_ N
•1 ~1T r f Y
r1 S\
tl5
f
~ f
l
ItMtM
4 Y0
Y13 r
y rw3Yn ~ 4
O OOOw3Y0wi )D all) 17 N
Nat
•O 1 31nw
.1 O9
~J ~ ~ ri1 r
O Tw awi 1Y3- •w
~ 't7 ~ YYII
O V
J awl " 31f'J ~ w
a
t s`w ~g
p a ~
x w4 ~ 1 ~ ; 8 -
3
O p Y N
O i. 6
v r~
= aw 7i71 M•~r~Iwt
Z ~
w00~r1 .y~.• ~)ly
'OOW3mw5 A all> Exhibit B-1.
1f1Y11N1w L nil)
VlWj IIM A AL12
3 S +I 1
O ~ y
Q r c
u F Y Y
7 w tl
x d F ~ Yl Y 1
o ~ Y F
b
ryY
au !
do
w
P, Y~l1
a+`' r
r
88 Qz?
r
6 b,
8 8 r
lYl
x
e 3
~ P lY CM g
Il
A --c d
s
a
n
C°
Is
is 1
Y
y
tµrs lu
lY
1
I tY 'OM VP, m A
Lry
Yb 'D 's 0
o
e ~ _ Y
• iiV ~ rqs it ~
en it pl
YS
Y N
* s s b~ tl
4 R
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Appendix J. Descriptions of the significant natural features in
Shorewood found by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resource's Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program.
SPECIES STATUS SHEET
SCIENTIFIC NAME: Notropis anogenus Forbes
COMMON NAME: Pugnose Shiner
CURRENT MINNESOTA STATUS: None
PROPOSED MINNESOTA STATUS: Special Concern
BASIS FOR PROPOSED MINNESOTA STATUS: The Pugnose Shiner is a species of the weedy shorelines of lakes
and warmwater streams. Throughout its range, the Pugnose Shiner is known to be generally rare, and often
absent in apparently suitable habitat (Lee et.al. 1980). Becker (1983) states that the species "appears to be
in serious trouble over its range." In Minnesota, collections of the Pugnose Shiner are known from 42 sites
across the central portion of the state. It is difficult to know if populations have declined in recent years,
since collections of more than ten individuals have always been rare. Surveys in the past 25 years have
discovered six new site-records but have duplicated prior records at only two sites (J. Hatch pers. comm.).
Removal of littoral vegetation from lakes and an increase in turbidity in lakes and streams have been linked
to this species' demise in other states, and both these phenomena have occurred at many of the historic
• Minnesota sites. It appears that Minnesota remains the center of abundance for this species, and additional
losses of our populations would have significant impact on the global security of the species. Consequently,
Special Concern status is needed and reasonable.
SELECTED REFERENCES:
Becker, G.C. 1983. The fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.
i
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocuti, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., eds. 1980.
Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
854pp.
Proposed Amendment of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species
Statement of Need and Reasonableness: December 4, 1995
Page 71
1084
SPECIES STATUS SHEET
SCIENTIFIC NAME: Etheostoma microperca Jordan & Gilbert
• COMMON NAME: Least Darter
CURRENT MINNESOTA STATUS: None
PROPOSED MINNESOTA STATUS: Special Concern
BASIS FOR PROPOSED. MINNESOTA STATUS: The Least Darter is the smallest fish species native to Minnesota
and is restricted to areas of dense vegetation and sluggish water movement in clear streams and lakes,
usually associated with springs or spring seeps (Becker 1983). It is known from 34 sites across the southern
two-thirds of the state, but most of its populations occur in the west-central portion of Minnesota in the
Otter Tail River drainage, and in the Crow Wing River and Pine River drainages of the Upper Mississippi
River (Bell Museum of Natural History, Fish Collection Database). These populations represent the
northwestern limit of the species' range and, along with other scattered state populations, are disjunct from
those of the Ozark and eastern Great Lakes regions (Becker 1983). In addition to being. a major center of
abundance for the species, the Otter Tail River supports a population that exhibits life history characteristics
substantially different from those that occur near the center of the species' range (Johnson and Hatch 1991).
For these reasons, Special Concern status is necessary and reasonable.
SELECTED REFERENCES:
Bell Museum of Natural History, James Ford. Fish Collection Database, Version 1.0. Ecology Building,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Becker, G.C. 1983. The fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.
Johnson, J.D. and J.T. Hatch. 1991. Life history of the Least Darter Etheostoma microperca at the
northwestern limits of its range. Am. Midl. Nat. 125:87-103.
• Lutterbie, G.W. 1976. The darters (Pisces: Percidae: Etheostomatinae) of Wisconsin. M.S. Thesis,
Univ. Wisc., Stevens Point. 307pp.
Proposed Amendment of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species
Statement of Need and Reasonableness: December 4, 1995
Page 64
RED-SHOULDERS) HAWK
~74 Buteo lineatus (Gmetin)
OFFICIAL STATUS: Special Concern
BASIS FOR STATUS: Tue red-shouldered hawk has two major but dis-
junct populations in North America. The larger population ranges
throughout the eastern United States and portions of southeastern Canada
westward into the eastern Great Plains. The second and much smaller
population occurs along the coast of southwesternOregon and California.
The red-shouldered hawk. which has been on the Audubon Society's Blue
List since 1972. has been reported in declining numbers throughout its
range, particularly along portions of the Atlantic Coast. Concern for its
status in the Upper Midwest has prompted several states to give special
_ recognition to the species.
- In Minnesota, the red-shouldered hawk was never very common. Al-
r though there had been several sightings, the species was not documented
nesting in the state until 1935. The only positive evidence of its occurrence
_ was one wing and the tail from a bird shot in Hennepin County and deposit-
ed in the Bell Museum of Natural History in 1923. Today the species oc-
curs as a summer resident from Wabasha and Olmsted counties north and
west to Mahnomen. Becker, and Hubbard counties. Some individuals also
w winter regularly in the state, but observations increase in late winter, in-
dicating the return of some migrants.
The statewide breeding population of red-shouldered hawks probably
r` - numbers less than 200 pairs. An increase in reports during the last half-
century suggest that the species may have expanded its range in the state
to the north and west. It is difficult, however, to determine if this is a natural
range extension or if more observers are merely doing a better job of
reporting. Although it is a very vocal species near the nest site, the red-
shouldered hawk tends to be rather secretive. This, combined with its low
numbers, may have caused the hawk to be easily overlooked by earlier ob-
servers.
Regardless, the species is scarce today in Minnesota and has declined
markedly in the northern states since the late 1940s. There is some evi-
dence, that pesticide contamination has been responsible for the decline.
Recent work in Iowa, however, suggests that habitat alteration and de-
struction may be the major problem. The large, contiguous forest tracts
that the species is dependent on are becoming increasingly smaller an
aS~1 t #1, fragmented, thus creating habitat that is more suitable for the open-country
red-tailed hawk.
u#d PREFERRED HABITAT: Moist lowland woods and river bottoms are
the preferred habitat of this species. The work of Bednarz and Dinsmore
(1982) in Iowa suggested that a minimum tract of habitat for the species
would include 123 hectares of floodplain forest and 70 hectares of upland
r within approximately i kilometer of the nest. Numerous small hunting
M areas, usually marshes and wet meadows. are also important. The red-
shouldered hawk prefers more extensive woods than the red-tailed hawk
yet avoids the interior of large expanses of woods used by broad-winged
hawks.
/ AID TO IDENTIFICATION: The red-shouldered hawk is a colorful,
I ~ w
medium-sized buteo. Brown upperparts display areas of black and white
as well as rufous in the shoulder areas. The adult is extensively barred with
the numerous
rufous underneath. In flight, the most distinctive features are
narrow white bands on the tail and the light patch or -window" at the base
t;
• , _ ( of the primaries. The immature is similar but heavily streaked with brown
Yr underneath. The adults tend to be very noisy near nests.
REC014INIENDATIONS: A Geld study designed to assess the nesting
distribution and abundance of red-shouldered hawks in Minnesota is
necessary. Habitat requirements also need to be carefully described.
SELECTED REFERENCES: Bednarz and Dinsmore 1981, 1982: John
son 1982: Morris et al. 1982: Roberts 1932.
ii
„ Red-,houidered Hawk
BALD EAGLE
268 Kcaliaeetus leucoc'ephalus (Linnaeus)
• OFFICIAL STATUS: State Threatened. Federally Endam_ered in all
lower 48 states except Minnesota. Wisconsin. Michigan. Oretion. a:
Washington, where it is listed as Federally Threatened
BASIS FOR STATUS: The bald eagle is widespread throughout Cana
and portions of the United States. Two races are recosnized. The northe
race ranges throughout Alaska. most of Canada (except the archipela,
and Hudson Bay lowlands), and across the northern United States from ti.
Pacific Northwest to the Great Lakes and Maine coast. The southern raL
is found from the Delaware Bay south to Florida and west along the GU
-1 Coast. Formerly, the eagle also ranged across southern California and tt
` Southwest.
In presettlement times, the bald eagle nested throughout Minnesota. it
r-- f / eluding along the large prairie rivers and the bigger lakes in the souther
. ~1 half of the state. Now its territories are found in the northern forested ha;
of the state plus several each on the St. Croix and Lower Mississippi river
E~ In recent years, the eagle has gradually begun to reoccupy portions of it
former range in east-central Minnesota. including Sherburne. Stearns
Chi sago, and Anoka counties. A statewide survey in 1986 located 266 oc
cupied territories of which 187 (72 were successful. The Chippewa an,
Superior national forests accounted for 58% of the active territories
s' Among the 50 states. Minnesota has the third largest bald eagle breedin;.
population, following Alaska and Florida.
The decline of the bald eagle over its entire range in the contiguous 4,~
states has been well documented. Environmental contamination by DDT
a`. was the primary cause of the decline, and the mechanism was the accumu-
lation of DDT residues in fish, the major food of bald eagles. Since the ban-
ning of DDT in 1972, eagle populations have increased nationwide fron
their lows of the late 1960s. The Minnesota population was affected b\
- these same general trends, but it never declined to the point of being endan-
gered. The population on the Chippewa National Forest, which is the mos:
„ productive part of the bald eagle's range in Minnesota. has remained stable
or increased slightly since 1970. Nevertheless. this species is classified a~
c threatened because of its status nationwide and because of its sensitivity
' to future environmental contamination, habitat deterioration, and humar
harassment. Shooting remains one of the leading causes of bald eagle mor-
i
+~~,,A : tality.
PREFERRED HABITAT: The bald eagle selects lakes and rivers in for-
ested areas where large trees are available for nesting" The nest trees are
usually within .8 kilometer of water and are often closer. In Minnesota.
red or white pines in the supercanopy are often selected.
AID TO IDENTIFICATION: The white head and tail of the adult- in
bold contrast to the dark brown body-are diagnostic. Immatures and
subadults are more difficult to identify. The head and tail are brown, only
beginning to show white mottling with each successive molt, until the full
adult plumage is attained in the fourth or fifth year. White coloration in the
1 L p :1. z a `S
wing linings can be a distinguishing feature of the young birds.
I pp ~
RECOMMENDATIONS: Populations should continue to be monitored
to document the location and productivity of breeding pairs. Efforts to pro-
••E rect nest trees and to promulgate forest and recreational management rules
that minimize disturbance during the nesting season should be expanded.
The U.S. Forest Service already has poli ~ his
, but nests on other
lands need similar protection. Heavy p =-~c should
be continued and these incidents shout
1 14 ' SELECTED REFERENCES: Grie
s: and Siderits 1979; Nelson 1986: Sp,
Bald Eaele
21988, State of Minnesota, Vera Ming Wong
BLANDING'S TURTLE
332 EmYdoidea blandingii (Holbrook)
• OFFICIAL STATUS: Threatened
BASIS FOR STATUS: Although formerly more widespread, the Bland-
ing's turtle is now restricted to a small number of states and provinces in
the Upper Midwest, stretching from Nebraska eastward to Michigan. On-
tario, and Quebec. A smaller remnant population, spanning portions of a
few New England states. as well as a number of scattered populations
throughout the Northeast, testify to the turtle's more expanded range in
71 earlier times. Minnesota ties on the northwest periphery of the species'
_ range. An extensive area of sand dunes and marshes along the Mississippi
River, south of the town of Kellogg, is recognized as a major concentration
area for the turtle and may be one of the largest breeding populations in
its entire range. Elsewhere in the state, the Blanding's turtle has a more
/ spotty distribution, following the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers north-
_ / ward into east-central Minnesota and the Minnesota River westward into
the south-central portions of the state. Two recent records from Pipestone
• m- County also confirm the species' presence in the Missouri River drainage
of extreme southwestern Minnesota.
° Asa marsh inhabitant the recent destruction of wetland habitats by drain-
age and/or inundation for agricultural purposes, river chanttelizatian, and
water impoundment has greatly decreased available habitat forthe species.
Like other turtles, the Blanding's turtle is also vulnerable to collecting as
a desirable pet species (S45 for a 15 to 20 centimeter turtle); it is easily col-
_t• lected in areas where it is abundant, especially during the nesting season.
The species' life history also makes this turtle particularly susceptible to
human disturbances, as evidenced by a long term and intensive study of
the population inhabiting the Kellogg Dunes (Pappas, personal communi-
cation). Some features contributing to this susceptibility are late matura-
tion, low reproductive potential -(one clutch/season), long-lived adults,
and high mortality of eggs and juveniles. Population and reproductive dy-
namics suggest viable populations of Blanding's turtles are dependent on
large numbers of animals and adequate areas of undisturbed habitat.
PREFERRED HABITAT: The preferred habitat of the Blanding's turtle
includes calm, shallow water, rich, aquatic vegetation and sandy uplands
for nesting. Studies by Congdon et al. (1983) in Michigan and by Linck
(personal communication) in Massachusetts have shown that nesting fe-
males may travel considerable distances (200 to 400 meters) to a nesting
area, passing enroute what appears to be suitable nesting habitat immedi-
ately adjacent to the marsh in which they reside.
AID TO IDENTIFICATION: Blanding's turtle is medium-sized, averag-
ing 15 to 25 centimeters in length. The species' most diagnostic field char-
acteristics are its smooth, domed upper shell, or carapace, and its bright
yellow neck, throat, and chin. The carapace usually appears bluish black,
with numerous specks of yellow throughout. The lower shell, or plastron,
is bright yellow with black patches on the outside margin. In general, the
adult male can be distinguished from the female by its slightly indented
plastron and longer tail. The most distinct feature of the plastron is the
hinge, which allows the turtle to raise the plastron upward and provide
i't more protection to the soft extremities that it has pulled inside the shell.
For this reason the species is often referred to as a "semibox" turtle.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Efforts to identify, protect, and preserve pre-
ferred habitats of this species should be continued, particularly where
populations are locally abundant. Additional information on the species'
local distribution and abundance should also be collected to allow an ac-
curate assessment of its current status and to aid in protection efforts.
SELECTED REFERENCES: Breckenridge 1944; Conant 1975; Con-
gdon et al. 1983; Ewert 1982; Graham and Doyle 1977; McCoy 1973;
Vogt 1981.
r.•,•~-Y Blanding's Turtle: adult viewed from above (top) and below (bottom): side
view shown in silhouette.
L1988, State of Minnesota, Vera Min Won
pr cllc-.
Ccf"and L. anr-t
of M.Il.`L, 3--a Press, wi;^.;:~f,~.C.:
i
FOX SNAKE
Elaphe vulpina (Baird and Girard) Z4
OFFICIAL STATUS: Special Concern
• BASIS FOR STATUS: The species is limited to the north-central United
States with a significant part of its range in Minnesota. Two subspecies are
recognized; Elaphe vulpina vulpina, the western fox snake, is more wide-
spread and is the subspecies that occurs in Minnesota. The eastern fox
snake, Elaphe vulpina gloydi, is restricted to eastern Michigan, northern
Ohio, and southern Ontario. In Minnesota, the fox snake is widespread
throughout the southern half of the state, particularly along the Minnesota.
Mississippi, and St. Croix rivers and associated tributaries. Fox snakes
were considered by Breckenridge (1944) to be "the most abundant of the
larger snakes in southern Minnesota."
/ Like other large snakes, the fox snake is vulnerable to collecting as a
desirable pet species. A specimen approximately 30 to 90 centimeters long
may sell for $25 to $35. The species is also susceptible to local extirpation
by overcollecting or by destruction at den sites where large numbers of
snakes overwinter.
PREFERRED HABITAT: Fox snakes are common in dry and dry -mesic
_ forests and forest edges. In Wisconsin Vogt (1981) found them frequenting
forest clearings and woodlots. In Minnesota the fox snake is associated
with wooded bluffs along larger streams and the adjacent moist lowlands.
The species is'locally common in areas with intact woodlands and is abun-
dant on and near rock outcrops in the Upper Minnesota River Valley
G- (Lang, unpublished observations).
~ ~r7 AID TO IDENTIFICATION: The adult fox snake has a very prominent
and uniform body pattern. A large snake, averaging 90 to 140 centimeters
in length, the snake's yellowish or tan surface contrasts sharply with the
large brown or reddish brown blotches down the middle of its back. Alter-
nating with these large blotches are smaller blotches along the sides. The
j~ head lacks any conspicuous markings and is usually a solid yellow or red-
9 7 a` dish brown. The fox snake is often confused with milk snakes and gopher
snakes. One primary characteristic that distinguishes the species is the
shape of the scales: the milk snake has smooth scales: the fox snake has
weakly ridged scales; and the gopher snake has strongly ridged scales. The
young fox snake differs from the adult by having a mottled pattern on the
head; it is distinguished from young rat snakes by having fewer than 220
belly scales. When the snake is disturbed, it emits an odor that is similar
to that emitted by a red fox.
_ RECOMMENDATIONS: The most important action that could provide
`t•. protection to the species is to prohibit any collecting activities or willful
_ destruction, particularly at overwintering sites.
\k r
SELECTED REFERENCES: Breckenridge 1944; Conant 1975; Gillin-
gham 1974: Vogt 1981.
~,ryF ~ ,µ+,,,opa6r
+.y t xf~ ~.rr
~ f
1 s u{, ,
Fox Snake
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Appendix K. A simple example of the income tax benefits of a land
or conservation easement donation.
Table from "Protecting Your Community's Natural Resources: A Land
Protection Toolbox for Local Governments," State of Minnesota, Green Corridor
Project.
Taxpayer's adjusted gross income for year 1 $45,000
30% of adjusted gross income $13,500
Amount that can be deducted in year 1 $13,500
Amount carried over to year 2
(appraised value minus amount of deduction taken in year 1) $61,500
Taxpayer's adjusted gross income for year 2 $45,000
30% of adjusted gross income $13,500
Amount that can be deducted in year 2 $13,500
Amount carried over to year 3
(appraised value minus amount of deductions taken in years 1 and $48,000
2)
Taxpayers adjusted gross income for year 3 $50,000
30% of adjusted gross income $15,000
Amount that can be deducted in year 3 $15,000
Amount carried over to year 4
(appraised value minus amount of deduction taken in years 1, 2, $33,000
and 3
Taxpayer's adjusted gross income for year 4 $50,000
30% of adjusted gross income $15,000
Amount that can be deducted in year 4 $15,000
Amount carried over to year 5
(appraised value minus amount of deductions taken in years 1, 2, 3, $18,000
and 4)
Taxpayer's adjusted gross income for year 5 $60,000
30% of adjusted gross income $18,000
Amount that can be deducted in year 5 $18,000
Remaining amount after 5 years of deductions $ 0
•
1144
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
•
A very simplified relationship between income and the best
easement value for that income.
Adjusted 30% of adjusted 30°% of adjusted Easement value lncome:easement
gross gross income gross income for equal to income value ratio -
income 5 years tax deduction assuming income is
the same every
year
12,000 $60,000 7
50,000 $15,000 75,00 75,000 .67
$60,007 $1 9=1 $90,000 $90,000 .67
5$105,000 $105,000 .67
$80,000 $24,000 $120, 0,00 7
$100,000' $30,000 $15 , , .67
25,000 0 $18775W $18775W 7,5 .67
What is the best easement value?
Income _ Easement Vale = 0.67
Easement Value = Income 0.67
Example: income = $125,000
$125,000 - Easement Value = 0.67
Easement Value = $125,000 - 0.67
Easement Value = $186,567
1154
Land Conservation Committee Report
i
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Appendix L. A simple example of estate tax deductions from land
or easement donation.
Simple example of an estate tax deduction, in 1998.
PER M$2,000,000 i i { First spouse dies
• Children inherit 625,000 0
• Transfer remainder of estate to 1,375,000
surviving spouse ($2,000,000 - $625,000) $0
Second spouse dies
• Children inherit the entire estate 75 ,0 0
and receive a $625,000 deduction $1,375,000 ($1,375,000 - $625,000)
Same example as above with a conservation easement on property, in 1998.
$
• First spouse dies
• Children inherit 625,000 0
• Transfer remainder of estate to 1,375,000
surviving spouse ($2,000,000 - $625,000) $0
Second spouse dies after putting a conservation easement on property
• Conservation easement value, 1,125,000
$250,000, deducted from estate ($1,375,000 - $250,000)
• Children inherit the entire estate 400,000
and receive a $625,000 deduction $1,125,000 ($1,125,000 - $625,000 =
• Additional $100,000 exclusion $500,000)
on estate ($500,000 - $100,000 =
$400,000)
•
1164 I
1
U ~
O
0
` c
Z a u~ n v - F a
TI
° °
U ~p ~ 6 Y
O y Y E o = p u
cz c > y a` E
u $ n
g c -
n ° ~ b
fq ~ n ° m
0 o a
n g« u G~ u O n n
¢ 8 0 n
Ol L Y N ~ ~ C
r ~ s g a s
u
f
o
c
n g
a ~ m 'E
o• e n
Mfr ° ~ n °
n 2
2 E 5 K
L L $ ° c
o.o o
o > n Y
S
C a ¢ - -
5 c
i Q e E
G3 c
i
g c u
J •C ; 4
a ° °
LDI
V~ m e ~ 8 •`a " A ffi .g ~ T(
Q) LL o C •5 u n o T
V n E o u y J
g
O H F o U
Q n c
-
N~. ~ e ~ P CL
o E O
+r
0 o n
CC) -4
O 0) o q
ca \ :Y .D G C 'q .LL~
W T Z O ° L L °
T~ 1E .vN U O
0 LL /a^~~` Q Q y 2 O L '
Q/ W N '
li 1 m C N y _ N
J 0 Q z ° o E. E H m
a:. m: °
E m a ~ o.' m d~ ~ > u
E o m s m m
N- C m? m N U d
o
U 5 d ti O W N co
O U
0
C
rl c~Q ai•~~~°
N cn E U c O 0 0 0
cu > Q) (3) CZ
as
I 0 ~ -0 C a) cl)
_ =3 (D 0 (2) >
(1)0 U c c~CC a)
-0 C: E cn ~ cn
• con ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
Co -0 a)
co 0 c c
X 0) 3
- c E E 0
} o U 0 0
>,"O
cE(1).Q.0cn-0 co C:
M0 ca:3Mc
U. ~'-CL W ca E
a)o)c 0
o -O a _O CU O O E
Q _E cu E 0:3 E 0 E
to +r 3: O U o
-0 N i) 0- Cn.~.
m
O c Q) ~ -
_ Cn
c 3: a cz
can
Ca 00 a)0
-C
c a) U Q. C O
0 a) 0 O X
0') • J C a) Cif Ct1
T (n 0- cn
to E
a)
C Q - Q Q p cz E 15
U a) XLt U v
Q) co OU CZ CO a) L- -0 E O N o
= a) a) CIS
U N O a) O>-0 c
Q
r.. = N U a) c co a) c o
cq U 0- cz J O O O L W 70 co -
0 O
a) U
ca O U O T CC)
~ 'Cj Q3 fn a) '+-r
O cz a) o i a) H v
cl)
0 cz 00 (1)
..L.. co
0) co C:
CD E • cCS a) fn Q CO
CD U) _0 ca
cc E
cz c:
_ N
C L c~ co 0U E
E -C CL CL c- c -0 U)
O C C: I
O O a) a
C =
a E d Q 0
Z C CL c
0 ca
0 0 L- E
~L C a) N
L C N a)
U
ct 4)
0 LL. O O W
ca L.
o Q ¢ a
~ .Y
TI O O co
T
a) > 0 >
O1 L (n _L to
cz • C a)
> O a) > O N
CD C a) cn
N
4- c
Q :3 cz X co
=5 W
a) E (D E 0)
U
a) ~ m
U U) vOi > U U1 U)i >
(n 4- cn
m cz 4- as
cu cm a) M 0)
fn E L O E
c CO c
u) Q O cn Q- .c
a) Q) cz U O a) O ca U O
E c: U 'L L C Q) V •L L> (n
O cn a) L co a) o cn a) 'L cz a) .O
O QL - O a) QL - C
O O U cz a) O O v cCS a-'
E > E CL
N Q CTJ c W CO ~ O
cz _0 Q) _0
cn a) O '0 a) Q O O a) U- c~ co CL
O i O O N Q) p x (n O C ctS O p J O
a) co
O CZ co v Q' O O cn R5
O
Q X V- C C X U) L E X C C L
as
N cz m o O a) ~ Ocz M O O cz
ca = I- ~ > C.) J Q. U F- z3 > C.) -0
W
a) O O cn
O C13
C +r
O > 0 cz c a) Co m
4- C: O)l
:3 CL .2 -"e c a) 0
(n O CO
cu a) ~ ~ T
> (n cz U U ca `VE
> > ca T
L
cts a) 4- a) E C C:
N U) Co y-+
Q CD y
Q O C -0 0 CZ ~ O O E
pC U .a Q- L U co
E co co
L a) > O O co cz
,D O
m O O C
>1 cu J cU
O r- O N E Q) O
-r- c CL CO =3 4-
c >1 U)
U C) U -E U J a U a) > U > C-U
00
cz c~ d a) N O = O +i r N = N d E _
U) T C N Q. > E
Otm a1 d cC
U LL ~ i ca d V d (a N N cn
a .i > m 0 O y m
cc O LLJ
Ccz: LL Q (L a v
o N
NI
W ~0) O Q) L Q)
E ui E
a) N C U) c 0) co
W
.Q N~ U O = p
O
U co cis a) = E
• >
E ca
a) .Q Co p U) cz c
n
CU L-
i" U E (D i CD O O co
a) QQ~ -0 a)"O+' c U) :3 O E E c E c A O W
0 0 0 ca
0- U U U U O.S E U co
C _
0 CO 05
U)
O .Q Q Q s. i U
> "O O co 'cri~ >,co~ a) a)
U) J cz U O a) O a) O p O
ca O Q p N a) cn a)
c cz a) a) 0)
O aj C X Q. OU a) O c U
E O C-0- O E O w O E Co co ca C', C13 cz 4-
• la)_ cz Q U Q 2r O O D U 'O
i O X , a) L U O Fz a) = cz ca
O fl- O ca L O O
-Se -c: 0
ctf C15
O p p- CO ~ ~ ~ ~ cn p
0 0 cz N O _E .0)-c o Q
J O Q J E Q w w Q Q x cn E U Q N cu O
U
X i_ O U
c O cz i_.
O cz O p _
O 70-
> Q 4) N N ONI
_ co
c cz = M T
O C
CO t. m O O cn
a) co m (Z
0
~
- i CO ~ Q. -
CL C: 0
c: a) X co
a) N
N cz a) O a) ca
co
j E Q > cz
C: co
O m
~ r OU
T ~ O
N T x
C •O m C i Q. M 4) d
U LLLL J X ~ d C 0 > d
O 0Ca 0 °a
cr w `
J Q
NI C O a) y CO
r C i
a) -0 p a) > 0)
p) . a) O C a) cn O
C X m O U_ m
0-0 L m U C a) a) a) U
cn E O C
O C O C N p p C
in CO -0 M
O E m cn C
U
O jj
O p CO cn X
U c~ C a) U a) a) N
C C CO
i "C3 r.
0 o'zm3 a)° o a)
i> O U i C o p
U FD _0 a) p
c~ cis C U C0- a) cz O U m
U ~
a) O o"-- cz ctS
N Q U 4- +
- to cn
N
a)
C O W L
x -
0 C 0-0 v~ a) vim) cn+. p+«. O -0 C 4-
00
tn U) fl- X t~ x a) pU p L
U) ca co
C a)
O cz C
• ~ U C C ~ i- ~ ~ O U ~ i
U p U .p L U (LS a) O
C .a W L O "0
> a)
0) (D -0 CZ 0
0 Co a)
_ C (D O a) O Y s- C c
ca a) a) O O O x p 0- O O~ a)
0
O O O
• cn cn cu Q a) a) m _ a) r
4- ca w in E
CZ (D M - C R5 M Co c- ca
p -p C En O a) a) ~ O a)
~ aC )UNO a)+. N=~~
-0 C 4- C M C CO C
O i 0 C (n O C) O a) 'C: C cn
E -0 CL C C: cat
cz co C J_- JU J UU J UU (D 'C
CO 0)
° °
r o 3~ Via., =c 0 4.
L- E
0 CL
N r d O C d C
~j cn i O M d N W N N O
LL M
m d W L= t4 O C M C Co
cr o (D aQm °W~ °Wp
J G Q U U
CNy.-• O _
CV U) N O vi
7:3 c
0 0 4- :3
0 U) CO C)- C -C a)
(Z C
0 U)
cz -Fz CZ a) L a) V O O C
2-!' - C Q O
CL > U U U) a) E Q a) L U O
Q U X Q Q) O C 1 U
• Q > CZ U)
U) -a O V) -0 0 C U)
N V) a) O a) O U) U CD (D E
-0 a) cz
clj a) (n a) a) co
crj U) 0 a) (D CL
a) O L O a) U U v> o U Q> E
O O O
N x -C U (3 O O o o U O C:
oC a~ U c~ U Z Q m Q Q. Q m O 0- U Q
~ a)
cri OU _0
i
L C -0 a)
cri Q p -0 O co
O
V) . N O U O
as U) ~ O a) -
a) c~ U
E
E (n
U a) ~ C N
cz U L
• 0 (.n Q] L
O O u1 ~ C
4.- c
U) W 01 a) co a U)
3: 0- cz CZ -0
O O ~ C 0- X
O U)
Q O O E . _ ti ca , .
E a) -0 -a O
= U C U N
-0 -0
T c cz Q a) CV
• 0 -0 CO C Z Q U r~
(n cz
E o)
Q C a) :2 a) E
C 0 0 -0 0 U Q i co O
cn '
US x >1 x 0-
CZ 70 a - c-
N • O 'U) O a) o m U)
i L -0
U) 0
a) O
E -0 0) 0 U a) :3 N CD W CL
a) a- O O Q O C:
O O C a O L _
U U Q cn ~-0 cc U Cn Q0)
o rn O !
= x c 0
co c0 a d E t4 -
r\- N N ~ U.
cn r N V N ca
w- d
c cc
0 0... CL m CL
U L~L. 0.0 i0 d 0 0 O "
= m° NQa N°a a
~ ~ ti ~ Q
O
TI
W W c
m O Q) '
O O
U) O C O ^1 "a
W
• • (n C
(z U
_ a• ~ % ~
O
U Q CL
N O
O co
C C
C Q yam. cz
N O p •V U) O
i Ca
0 U N
O
O E O p a)
N >
O =03 cc Nc0 .00 >
0 U U X-
U Z7 O
cz C) 3: (n
O
U) a) E
O Q Q
U ° ~EEcz
Q Q U 0
O U y- 0 C C N
O R5 O
Q N
LO 0_ L N O -0 .Q ) ~II
..r NI
tl) C 0)
p p a) i T
"0O } T U i O O C
0)_ U c !E i
O O O co N O (D ~
Q 0_ NU) _ N C O 0 Co a) -0 00
N O i ti3 4- C O
CZ Ca 0
CL J O U
N Rf C L
C 0
L O. U O U O t
U +r
N "p O C _
C15 a) 0)
U _0 E O (1 O > O L73 O
J ~ Q Ell ca
O CO a)
0 V
L
co
C ca d E O N E
O = r y- IM
N r U Q L LZ. i
4)
O f- O i C~
LL 0
ca a
n a
J LL Z N 0 J
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix O. Proposed language for open space protection for the
Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
Introduction
"In deciding the amount which is desired of each land use type, several factors
have been considered:
4. Preservation of Greenspace. Past planning has tended to assume that
any land that is not set aside for wetland protection or parks will
ultimately be developed. This need not be the case. This section of the
Comprehensive Plan will explore means of establishing permanent
greenspace areas such as the use of zoning tools, assisting
neighborhoods in purchasing land, obtaining conservation easements,
or outright land acquisition by the City."
Land Use Objectives
"11. Identify parcels of land with the potential to be set aside as permanent
greenspace and explore means of obtaining conservation easements or
financing the acquisition of such parcels."
Land Use Issues - Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Land
"It is not necessary for all land to be developed."
"A limited number of vacant parcels remain to be developed in Shorewood.
Despite land use patterns having been relatively well established, issues will
undoubtedly arise concerning intensity, compatibility and environmental impact.
It is not necessary for all land to be developed.
General Land Use Policies
13. The removal of land'from the tax rolls shall be considered only when it
can be clearly demonstrated that such removal is in the public interest
(e.g., the preservation of greenspace)."
Land Use Classifications
"As undeveloped land in Shorewood becomes more scarce, there is increasing
interest in preserving at least some of it as permanent open space. Metro
Greenprint, a publication sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, provides an overview of programs available to communities
interested in the preservation of open space. With these and other programs in
mind, the City should examine its inventory of remaining undeveloped land,
establishing priorities for the acquisition of land (e.g. ecological preservation,
scenic and recreational value, etc.), and identifying financing alternatives for
such acquisition. Input from neighborhood groups would be valuable in this
effort."
1244 I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Land Use/Zoning Changes
"Shorewood's zoning regulations should be reviewed and updated periodically.
One issue that has been raised in the Natural Resources chapter of this Plan
that relates to the preservation of open space is land coverage. Shorewood
currently restricts the amount of impervious surface on property in shoreland
areas to 25 percent. It is recommended that a similar requirement, for example
30 percent, be imposed on land that is not located within the Shoreland zoning
district."
Land Subdivision
"Controlling the way land is subdivided goes hand in hand with zoning
regulations in ensuring the quality of urban development. As Shorewood's
larger tracts become developed, increasing pressure will occur to resubdivide
smaller parcels and land once considered to be marginal. The City's
subdivision regulations should be updated to better address these situations.
Further, all subdivisions of land should be examined for opportunities to
preserve open space."
Chapter Summary
13. Develop and implement programs for the preservation of open space."
•
1254
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix P. Options for facilitating community involvement in the
planning process
• Facilitators should continually ask participants if they think the project is on
track.
• Times and places of community meetings should change, so different
people can attend meetings and so the process does not become routine.
• Staff and elected officials should absorb what people say during meetings.
• Photos of places and people are useful at meetings to give people a good
sense of what is being discussed.
• `Hot-button' issues need to be identified so people know their concerns are
being heard.
• If someone is upset about something stop the discussion or proceedings
and ask why. Do not ignore someone who is discontent.
• Make meetings social by always having food, beverages, and an informal
tone.
• Keep the group focused and moving through the process.
• Build consensus and make decisions as a group by voting. Use a system
like the five finger system. Five fingers means yes, I like it; 3 fingers means, I
can live with it; and 1 finger means no way.
• Use aerial photos and maps at meetings and open houses to show people
what natural areas still exist.
• Do a visual preference survey to get an idea of what, as a group, citizens
want the community to look and feel like (see Appendix
• Put photos in the newsletter that illustrate the current condition of a natural
area in Shorewood and the potential or intended future conditions of the
natural area. Residents reply by checking a box indicating which photo they
prefer and sending it back to the City.
• Link projects with adjacent neighborhoods or communities to increase the
impact of the project. This will also help to put the project into a larger
context than just a local one.
• Promote consensus by encouraging collaboration and partnership.
• Use a common language. It is essential to make sure that the words you use
share a common meaning and to carefully listen to what others are saying.
(Some recommendations are from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Twin Cities Tree Trust.)
1264-
I -and Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix Q. A preliminary list of criteria for rating open space
parcels considered for protection.
• if the site is the last parcel suited for protection in the neighborhood
• the rate of development in the neighborhood
• the aesthetic value of the property, specifically if it has a vista or has
running or open water
• if the site has an aesthetically pleasing public view, e.g., the site has an
attractive woods and is on a busy corner
• if the site screens aesthetically unpleasant areas
• if the parcel separates a residential area from other land uses, e.g.,
commercial
• the site's sensitivity, i.e.., the ecological community or steep slopes,
cannot withstand development;
• if the wildlife habitat provide by the parcel is in short supply in the area;
• the historical significance;
• the number of edges or transition zones for wildlife (more than 1, more
than 3);
• low maintenance cost to City, e.g., the site has no diseased trees, erosion
or noxious weeds;
• public action is required to protect the site, i.e., - protection will not occur
by private means
• multiple open space use - potentially can provide passive recreation,
conservation, screening, etc.
• residents in the neighborhood where the site is support its protection
• (for acquired parcels only) public access is safe, easy, near a main
roadway, and parking is available
• (for acquired parcels only) near a public school
• (for acquired parcels only) year round passive recreation is possible,
e.g., hiking, skiing, snowshoing
• (for acquired parcels only) the site's potential for ecological restoration
• lowest bid (for PDR program)
• if there is no public access to open space in the neighborhood
1274.7
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• if the City has invested resources into making the site residential
• parcel has lake shore
1284 I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Appendix R. Sample Point System for Prioritizing Parcels with
Development Potential.
Vacant Parcels
Pts %
Acres
1 ac 1
5 ac 2
10 ac 3
possible p#s 3 23%
Covertype(s)
Natural area appears to have some value in terms of 2
resource protection or intact native community
possible pts 2 15%
Density
Number of Immediately Adjacent Residential
Units
> 5 residential units 0.5
>10 residential units 1
Zoning
Shoreland - protection of water resources 0.5
R-1 C - 0.5 acre lots 0.5
possible pts 2 15%
Open Space in Neighborhood
no permanent open space in 1/2 section - does not 0.5
include lakes
immediately adjacent to permanent open space - 0.5
includes lakes
> 0.5 mi. to nearest permanent, public open space 0.5
> 1 mi. to nearest permanent, public open space 1
possible pts 2 15%
Market Value
low price per acre 1
lower price per acre 2
possible pts 2 15%
Number of Potential Lots
>5 lots 1
>10 lots 2
possible pts 2 15%
total possible without "other" 13 100%
Other
forfeited land 1
next to school property 1
owners willing to sell/donate 1
1294
Land Conservation Committee Report
f
DRAFT 11/12/98
Occupied Parcels
Pts %
Acres
1 ac 0.5
5 ac 1
10 ac 2
possible pts 2 17%
Covertype(s)
Natural area appears to have some value in terms of 2
resource protection or intact native community
possible pts 2 17%
Density
Number of Immediately Adjacent Residential
Units
>5 residential units 0.5
>10 residential units 1
Zoning
Shoreland - protection of water resources 0.5
R-1 C - 0.5 acre lots 0.5
possible pts 2 17%
Open Space in Neighborhood
• no permanent open space in 1/2 section - does not 0.5
include lakes
immediately adjacent to permanent open space - 0.5
includes lakes
> 0.5 mi. to nearest permanent, public open space 0.5
> 1 mi. to nearest permanent, public open space 1
possible pts 2 17%
Market Value
low price per acre 1
lower price per acre 2
possible pts 2 17%
Number of Potential Lots
>5 lots 1
>10 lots 2
possible pts 2 17%
total possible without "other" 12 100%
Other
forfeited land 1
next to school property 1
owners willing to sell/donate 1
•
1304
ml
^T'
W ~
v
a 0 X X X X X X X X
a> m
a
c CZ
X X
a
as E
0
i
x 06
? h X co X a1 co co czS °6 X
co Co
(D CO W
N- O~ c6 O~ co co cz co O(D
a) c0cz - OO - - - - C)O
a_ m J cA CO C cn 0 0 0 N N
v m N
a~
a~ -
c
X X X X X
c ~
(D a)
~ff
N
_ c c c c0 ccc 0 c
tU O N Q) .C I
w a) .Q to
a) O
a o ~
Q) t~ 0 a
to E a) (D a) w co Co (D E -0 T 0 c
0 V) (D cr 0 a) co 0) 0
ill a) ca a) - a) E2 0 0 - Co co c ~o Co 70 CL M
Co
U) Q cU CZ ° a~ ~CM co~ U1
O co M v«5
_ Lam, C 0 0 z~Qa)
O 0 0 O a) U
cz w 0) -0 co rl cii
Q Q Qy 0) CZ v a) 0 ~~0~ c ~ T
O 0 0 cz 0 ill cC Co Qy N
c
= O 0 O tll 00 O 0~ 00 c cQ
0 O 0 C co 0 .c O O 0 W O
a ,Z N
~ V
9) a) N N ° C2
a) CO ca 3 co > cc crj
a) c N
Q
CO 0 CD 0) 0
N C O= 0 •a O O co c a)
ca -
c 00 c: E czY
E a Co co
E = O c2 c._ 0c tea) c-
(Z C($ c - ° Q- C Co a) L- M U c° ca 07 Co cc
c co ca= i co cz c O z)o_ 0
-CZ 0 a) a) (D CD m
-0 cz a)
a) 00 0 c 0 CU W -
co T co -p CO .1-- cE
C a J 0 0 C 0
O O E O czs
C L~L czS tz3 RS C 2: ~ C 0 0 .0 a)
U c
c rx co co (D - CO 0
ca >
J 0 Q "0
Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/12/98
Appendix T. The City of Maplewood's guidelines for open space
• management.
MISSION STATEMI ENT -
The mission of the Maplewood Park and Recreation Commission Open Space. Program is to .
promote environmental stewardship of publicly owned open space land through an
. approach to land management that integrates high environmeietal_quality with the provision .
of opportunities for people to enhance their understanding and enjoyment of the natural
world through compatible outdoor reeoation and. education experiences in a natural
resources-based municipal open space system. _
.The aim of open space land management policies shall be to work with any and all agents
of municipal government to provide and protect a natural resources-based open space system that
includes a diversity of wildlife, native plant communities, restoration of a diverse -range of native
species, quality water resources, and that creates an attractive natural environment for the citizens
of Maplewood, now .and in perpetuity.
i he Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department maintains and improves the .
environmental quality of land under its operating authority by using an ecosystem-based
management. approach;, that is, managiag land for the health and vigor-of the set of biological and
physical elements that affect.any organism and form.its environment (SIoeombe; 1994.) This
management approach is reflected in these policies and in Part IL-she 1996 Maplewood Open .
Space Land Management Operations Plan, a detailed management guidance -document for use by
staff. Similarly, the site specific master plans are txpected to reflect an ecosystem=based approach
to resource management,
Nine general management guidelines* are be applied* to each open space parcel. Speck
methods used for any individual parcel will vary according to the goals 'established for that parcel.
The general management guidelines. are as follows:
1. Purchase or acquire land based on the evaluation methodology and ranking system created by
the Maplewood Open Space Committee (see Appendix A.) y
2 The Maplewood Park and Recreation Commission shall . determine policy for the management
.of open space land. Within the structure of City government, a technical advisory. task force,
comprised of *professional experts and knowledgeable lay people, shall be convened, by the Director
of Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department. .
3. Open space parcels are actively imanaged. Active management is acbieved* by: a) preservation
of native plant communities where field inventories determine such communities exist; -b)
•
1324
approximation of native plant communities shsough restoration sechnicues re.=ommcnded by the
•c rent science of restoration-, c) effective management of plant communities which were native to
this area of Minnesota during the mid-1800's, prior to settlement by Europeans; d) maintaining
preserved, restored, and managed plant communities at a size as large as the-prope•.. boundaries
allow and financial resources of Maplewood make feasible; and e) maintain or improve the'
diversity of wildlife, keeping it In balance with available habitat while providing the public
opportunities to understand and appreciate wildlife resources.
.
- • -
4: in cooperation with surrounding neighborhoods and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed
District, manage the water resources of open space parcels in a way that is environmentally
responsible and maintains or improves water quality.
S: Maintain and enhance the existing aesthetic values provided by the natural resources of the
open spaces through active management. Aesthetic values. offer a sense osc openness,
out a native or
views within. an area and interesting views from surrounding areas.
the unpleasant views, and the oppormniryto view birds and other wildlifa. ' Where such values are
lacking, take steps to restore them.
con Watershed
b.. Implement the- goals and objectives of the 1994 Phalen Chain of Lakes
rained in than gement
Project Comprehensive Natural Resources Plan and the recommendauo
Ecological Classification Project for the City of Maplewood.
7. Create buffers that protect natural resources sensitive to erosion or deposition residential o
• industrial development, invasion by -exotic or aggressive species, air pollution, any other
management practice conducted either on park lands or adjacent lands that would negatively affect
the health and vigor of the natural resource:
base knd of the
8. Promote appreciation and understanding of Maplewbod's natural resources throe h high
. =Parks and Recreation Department's management efforts to protect these.resources g .
quality tnviroamental prop-
quality
9. Engage in 'companion management of adjacent, nearby or az y otherTublicly or privately owned
_ •
land deemed valuable.
~~ara ement by the City Structure {Guideline #Z
.
The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director shall canvene.a committee of.nyD and.
professional experts to assist in the review of the policies, *perations, and maaag n open
ace roperties. The Director will provide an annual report to the Pa and Rthe reon
p changes in the general land management plan as well as sp
Commission outlining ve site
plans, The Director, or.a designee, will serve as the liaison between-the Maplewood: Park and
Recreation Commission and the Technical Advisory Task Forte.
The Technical Advisory Task Force shall consist of seven (7) members. 'The Task Forcethe
representatives. shall include but-not be limited to the following: one representative' each from
Maplewood Nature Center, the Phalen Chain of Lakes Watershed Management Project's Natural
Resources Board, and the- Maplewood Planning Commission. Any regular member of the Board of
Managers of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District who resides in the City shall be
considered an ex-officio member of the Technical AdvisoryTask Force. The remauung positions
shall be residents of Maplewood and r=o¢nized as -possessing either a professional or amateur
expertise in natural resources,,preservation/restoration issues, or in some other way demonstrate a .sound understanding of and interest in the.natural (i.e., unbuilt) enviro shall
--The main purposes of the Technical Advisory Task Force For Maplewood Optnpace
ers relating to natural, historic, and
• be to (1) advise the Director of Parks and Recreation on ratt
prehistoric resources of open space parcels, and (2) at the direction of the-Director of Parks and
Recreation to conduct an annual review of policies, operations, and management of open space
properties and of the mast er plans for each open space parcel. The Park and Recreation
Commission is responsible for the receipt and critique of the Director's annual ten i The annual
Commission is obligated to forward recommendations to the Maplewood Ciry
review shall be based on information and technical advice from the T Commis visoryudek'f o Ce
For Maplewood Open Space. Other duties of the Park and Recreation
working in cooperation with the Director of Parks and Recreation to forw~,policcyy -.resources
Tecommendations to the City Council on matters concerned uplands, with Maple
s, forest remnants, and
..base including but not limited to water bodiea, ear nstscration plans for the "80°b natural arcs :wildlife; (2) development of five. year an y
acreage"'of open space parcels; (3) direct the Parks 'and Recreation staff to expand outdoor
to include resources of the open space lands; (4) conduct periodic reviews
- education programming
-of the Director's land management master plan for each individual pparc management goals for .
kmentatio
conduct semi-annual reviews 'of progress on -imp
any and all open space parcels.
Operations'money will be sought from the Maplewood City Council because aa mole core
of committed management doll ars is needed to meet at least basic operations and t eas g ore for .
obligations for open space properties. airy staff shall seek foundation or other gran upp
ems, such as tree plantings, and shall aggressively compete for available grant.monies .
special progr ects. Further, 'arks and Recreation
i to fund restoration, preservation, and other similar prof
Department staff shall make use of volunteers to assist operational maintenance of open space
properties and in-other ways deemed appropnate.by
Practices and Methods of Active Land Management (Guideline #3 & #61
General Comments. The .presence of open span in Maplewood is intended to add to.the
of fzagrnentation, a
open, undeveloped, and natural feel of the City. Due to small size,, high degree history of multiple-use, and.surrounded by development, these.open space sites function primarily
meet with no real
as edge ecosystems, narrow areas where two or more types of vegetation n m the ecological
interior. The limitations created by as edge effect can be o ~tie ouires enlarging mna$ement context.
context in which the. property is viewed, thus changing natural the 8 r properties ecologically using natural .
The general policy intent.is to manage the open space systems principles to guide decision-making and to employ effective management practices to
native ant commumues: This intent requires that two major ecological ideas provide the
restore pi management policy. First, given the small extent of these parcels,
foundation for open space lead plant
any disturbance, natural or human-induced, is likely to have a signifcant impact on existing must
and animal species.- Second, to actually .manage at the ecosystem level, open spare parcels be set in a larger context. each Maplewood open spay p~1 will be viewed in
• - environmental
the context of a larger landscape (e.g., the Phalen watershed, & 'region ofthe state, etc). The
ecosystem aecds of that larger. landscape will -be addressed by natural resource managers .and
- - dynamic natural . .
municipal decision-makerSlo increase the likelihood of achieving cyneuric matvral oak resource
and
• planning that successfully restores native plant communities (pram
upland open areas) and improves wildlife diversity.
Two important policy tools art used by the Park and Recreation Commission and the.
m-based open
Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department staff to implement the letnented on Maplewood
- policies of open space land. 3'he specific management practices imp
space land should develop-from the stated natural resources goals and objectives of the Phalen
Chain of Lakes-Watershed as expressed in the Comprehensive Natural Resources Plan (1994) and
the management recommendations for Maplewood that are contained in the Ecological.
Classrficarion Project for the City of Maplrwood.(1995.) for
. Open Space Management (The 80:20 Policy.) : To retain a legacy of open gT~n spices
Maplewood generations, no mom.than 20% of a parcel may be impacted-on by.development.
for active use, i.e., recreation or education. Development is understood to mean primitive or minor
development, unless a compelling argument is made for a special project such as en interpretive
center. A minimum of at least 90% of a parcel shall be restored to and retained in a natural
undeveloped state, with an emphasis pn the restoration of native plant communities.
The combined acreage of open water and designated wetland is subtracted from -the total -
acreage of the pa=l and the resulting difference is multiplied by 20% *to determine the maximum
number of acres available for active use development (Hennepin Parks, 1995•) impact zones are
planned at a width_of 20 feet, ten feet either side of center, for all trails. The. width dimensions of
other active use areas are calculated using their maintained edge as the boundary.
Decisions about the eztent_of restoration efforts must be made on an individual site basis,*
following completion (for each site) of environmental assessments that include detailed soil- .
analysis and plant and animal species inventories for each parcel purchased by the City. - These
studies will assist the staff in completing the master .planning process for each site, a melding of
the parcel's Qiant/wildlife community concept plan (800/%) and its educationlcompatible recreati on
i concept ylan (20%l, thus creating the details of the 80:20 development ratio. This final ratio must
'be at least 50:20, but in recognition.of parcel conditions other ratios are acceptable, such as 85:15
or 90:10. with the s tated
Management actions taken on the 80% of :a par=1 must remain in keeping w
goal of active management. All management activities on these parcels must,be directed towards
the long-term development of the parcel's natural resources through collection and analysis of
biological data to 'enable sound management decisions: Staff- and volunteers must work closely
with other City personnel to ensure that natural resources and recreation endeavors are compatible'-
with the policies and .managempnt plans and in compliance with open space. and park master plans. -
Human-sponsored management shall occur in.concert with natural processes of change insofar as
this is possible and desirable. mere/ is the total par•i acreage not
The Eighty (80) Percent. The 80%. of any. open space p
developed. in any way, even. primitively, for direct public use. The goal of active natural resources
management for natural areas shall be to restore-and maintain high duality plant communities, and
the associated animals, representative of native communities present at the time of F=Opeaa
settlement., around 1850.. A natural. area is precisely defined in the master planning process for an
individual parcel. - Given that these parcels contain, undesirable plant species, exhibit disturbed soil
horizons, and display evidence of significant hamaa disturbance, passive natural processes and
changes shall be allowed to take place insofar as is desirable but will not.be solely relied on for
management. Careful planning is cequired to protect and preserve any existing valuable plant and
wildlife, topography, Water, bodies, and other natural systems of quality. 't'hese sensitive features .
need to be identified and protected from human-induced disturbance, 'including pedestrian traffic,
dogs, bicycles, motorcycles and other motorized vehicles. Ground-nesting birds .and unique native
plants are two examples:. .
All open spate parcels shall receive basic, continual vegetation management. These
practices include but are not limited to the ,removal of noxious weeds, exotic and/or very
aggressive plant species, and the removal of trees and other vegetation inflicted with identified,
serious disease pathogens, such as oak wilt or Dutch elm disease.. Other than the. need to remove
trees that constitute, by ordinance, -an immediate serious hazard or threat to human safety, every
effort shall be made to retain downed trees and snags on open space properly in recognition of
their importance as. wildlife habitat. No open space parcel will be planted with any turf grasses.
No mowing- will occur on -these properties except when used as a vegetative management
alternative to burning. for control of unwanted vegetation.
"Beyond basic .vegetative management practices, acceptable land and wildlife management
practices will be used to restore, maintain, or preserve the natural setting and native wildlife
populations, or to.protect the health and safety of the public. Plants native.to the Maplewood area
and representative of the Big Woods, Oak Savanna, and marsh plant communities should be used
whenever possible. However, nonnative plants may be accessary for providing buffers, erosion
control, or to create specialty wildlife. habitat. budget shall go to the
The Twenty (20) Percent. The majority of the operations preservation, restoration, and maintenance of native plant communities and wildlife habitats in the
80% natural areas.:'Therefore,-all but primitive development is avoided in the active. use areas.
Minimal trails, rustic benches, no-gnll.picnic areas, and observation points are examples of .
primitive development.
Active use is intended to mean human use that is compatible with the undeveloped natural
areas. Any development of open space property for. active use should relate to and be compatible
with the overall landscape of an individual parcel. The plant species selection, plant or structure . .
placement, and design should complement the 80% natural area and be integrated as part of a total
landscape design .for. each parcel. The goal of natural resources management in active use areas
shall be to provide a natural setting which is safe, attractive, and one that can withstand human
recreational and/or educational use within finite capacities planned out for each parcel- Human
• activities shall not be detrimental to the natural resource.
The Maplewood Park and Recreation Commission, the Technical Advisory Task Force, and
staff of the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department are directed to work with personnel from
the departments of Public Works, Community Development & Planning. and the Ramsey-
Washington Metro Watershed District to implement landscaping plans that reflect the direction. and
ideals of -the policies and management plans. Similarly, the Park and Recreation Commission
Revie Board, and the Maplewood
works cooperatively with the'Plaaniag Commission, the Design t/
City Council.
Certain landscaping criteria shall be applied to all active use areas, of the open space
parcels. These four criteria are specified in the 1996 Maplewood Open Spare Land Mawgemenr
Operations Plan (see attached.
;
Pro~amminir Outdoor Education (Guideline #8)
- The outdoor education program is provided by the Maplewood Naturt'Center staff and
volunteers. The overall goal of outdoor education is to provide high quality nature interpretation
to park and open space users and to function as' environmental education resources for schools. It '
is the intent of the Commission that outdoor education programming resources be broadened to.
include open space properties. -
Specific as of Naturaf Resource Management (Guidelines #1-9)
• The MMaple'ood Park aad Recreation Commission, in cooperation with the Maplewood
Parks and Recreation Department, the Public Works, and Community Development and Planning
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
6.0 Bibliography
Allmann, L. 1997a. Land protection options: a handbook for Minnesota
landowners. Available from The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Chapter,
1313 5th Street SE, Suite 320, Mpls., MN 5414-1588. (612) 331-0750.
Allmann, L. 1997b. Natural areas: protecting a vital community asset.
Available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural
Heritage and Nongame Research Program, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul,
MN 55155-4031. (612) 296-8319.
Diehl, J. and T.S. Barrett. 1988. The conservation easement handbook:
managing land conservation and historic preservation easement programs.
Available from the Trust for Public Land and Land Trust Alliance, 1319 F
Street NW, Suite 501, Washington DC, 20004-1106. (202) 638-4725.
Green Corridor Project and the State of Minnesota. 1998. Protecting Your
community's natural resources: a land protection toolbox for local
. government. St. Paul: State of Minnesota.
Land Trust Alliance. 1998. Land Trust Standards and Practices. Land Trust
Alliance web page: www.Ita.org.
Trust for Public Land. 1998. Park Bonds Continue Upward Trend. In:
Greensense: financing parks and conservation, vol. 4, no. 1.
Trust for Public Land. 1995. Doing deals: a guide to buying land for
conservation. Available from the Land Trust Alliance, 1319 F Street NW,
Suite 501, Washington, DC 20004-1106. (202) 638-4725.
•
1374-
l
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
• Additional Resources
Endicott, Eve, ed. 1993. Land conservation through public private partnership.
Available from Island Press, 24850 East Lane, PO Box 7, Covelo, CA,
95428. 1-800-828-1302.
Land Trust Alliance. 1990. Appraising easements. Available from the Land
Trust Alliance, 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington DC 20004-1106,
(202) 638-4725.
Land Trust Alliance. 1993. The economic benefits of open space. Available
from the Land Trust Alliance, 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington DC
20004-1106, (202) 638-4725.
Land Trust Alliance. 1993. Conservation options: a landowners guide.
Available from the Land Trust Alliance, 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 501,
Washington DC 20004-1106, (202) 638-4725.
Lind, B. 1991. The conservation easement stewardship guide: designing,
. monitoring, and enforcing easements. Available from the Land Trust
Alliance, 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington DC 20004-1106, (202)
638-4725.
Mantell, M, et. al. 1990. Creating successful communities: a guidebook to
growth management strategies. The Conservation Foundation. Washington
DC: Island Press.
Planning & Zoning Center Inc. 1992. Community planning handbook: tools and
techniques for guiding community change. Available from Michigan Society
of Planning Officials, 414 Main Street, Suite 202, Rochester, MI 48307./
(313) 651-3339.
Small, S. J. 1990. The federal tax law of conservation easements. Available
from the Land Trust Alliance, 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington DC
20004-1106, (202) 638-4725.
Small, S. J. Preserving family lands: essential tax strategies for the landowner,
second edition. Available from the Landowner Planning Center, Boston,
• MA. (617) 357-1644.
1384
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/12/98
Tester, J. 1995. Minnesota's Natural Heritage. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Washington County Planning and Administration Services. 1996. Washington
County 2015 Comprehensive Plan: a policy guide to 2015. Available from
Washington County, Washington County Government Center, 14900 North
61 st Street, Stillwater, MN 55082, (612) 430-6011.
•
•
1394
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
LAND CONSERVATION MEETING CONFERENCE ROOM
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1998 7:00 A.M.
AGENDA
1. A. Roll Call
Riesen
Svoboda
Bruno
B . Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Land Conservation Committee Meeting Minutes for November 16, 1998 (Att.-#2 draft)
3. REVIEW DRAFT
Revisions to the draft report (Att.-#3 draft)
4. EXAMPLE OF EASEMENT VALUATION
Dean Riesen and Brad Nielsen
5. ADJOURNMENT
• SHOREWOOD LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
7:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM
MINUTES
1. A CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was convened at 7:05 a.m.
Ad Hoc Committee Members Present: Chair Dean Riesen and Fred Bruno.
Also Present: Jim Hurm, City Administrator; Brad Nielsen, Planning Director; Paula
Callies, Planning Commission Liaison; Mark Themig, Park Commission
Liaison; and Erica Hahn, Planning Intern.
B. REVIEW AGENDA
Nothing further was added to the agenda.
2. MINUTES APPROVED
Minutes from the November 2 meeting were approved.
• 3. LETTER CONCERNING TAX WORKSHOP
Erica Hahn sent a letter announcing a workshop on tax strategies in land conservation transactions
on November 20 to approximately 38 realtors, attorneys, appraisers, accountants, and other
financial advisors in the Shorewood area. The letter included a fact sheet on conservation
easements that was written by the Green Corridor Project.
4. PLAN PRESENTATION
It was agreed that the Committee will meet on November 30 to finalize the Committee report.
Administrator Hurm suggested that the report be presented at the December 14 City Council
meeting.
5. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT
The Committee reviewed the draft report. Changes were discussed for the Executive Summary
and Section 4, Plan Implementation. Erica Hahn reported that Ray Rossini will review the estate
tax section of the report and the example of estate taxes and conservation easement donations.
Much of the meeting was spent discussing how the open space plan will be implemented. Chair
Riesen asked the Park and Planning Commission liaisons for comments on the implementation
proposed in the Committee's report. Commissioner Themig wondered if open space conservation
is a planning issue or a park issue. Administrator Hurm said that the Park Commission already has
experience with the trail planning process. Chair Riesen indicated that the Committee would like to
see the City begin education and promotion efforts at the start of the new year. Because an
. acquisition program will be political, he continued, it will take more time to begin implementing
LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 AD
P
AGE 2 such a program. Commissioner Callies asked if implementing the open space plan could be a
responsibility of the Mayor-elect's proposed environmental committee. Administrator Hurm
indicated that the Mayor-elect has suggested such a committee, but Administrator Hurm did not yet
know the specific tasks of such a committee. Erica Hahn has outlined some potential duties for a
new environmental committee and will include them in the next meeting packet. Commissioner
Callies asked if the body that implements the plan will be very active? Chair Riesen responded that
it will be at first and then its activity will taper off.
Chair Riesen indicated that the wishes of Shorewood citizens concerning committing public
resources for open space protection is unclear. Administrator Hurm said that the City Council will
be discussing a public survey. Questions regarding pubic opinion of publicly funding open space
acquisition could be considered at that time.
Commissioner Themig suggested that the Park Foundation could be involved with implementation.
Administrator Hurm responded that the Park Foundation's focus is active recreation. Chair Riesen
said that active recreation and public access should not be associated with the City's open space
protection efforts. Commissioner Themig indicated that the Park Commission will be involved
with the trail planning process which is in itself a controversial process, and he suggested that the
open space planning process could get caught up in the potential conflicts of the trail process. The
trail planning process, he continued, is dealing with easements that will allow for public access,
and public access should be disassociated from the open space plan. Fred Bruno said that
incorporating the concept of the working group into the Mayor-elect's proposed environmental
committee might be the best way to administer the plan.
The Committee suggests that the open space plan take two tracks. The first would be educating the
public about land protection options and marketing the City's open space protection programs. The
. second track would be administering the City's land protection programs, e.g., an acquisition
program. Commissioner Callies suggested that the most important part of implementation will be
marketing and communication. Commissioner Themig commented that one-on-one contact with
people who own land with development potential may also be important. Chair Riesen offered
that a communication piece, e.g., a brochure, with specific examples could be sent directly to
people who own land with development potential. Commissioner Themig suggested that the
communications piece could be the executive summary of the Committee's report.
6. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Erica EJ Hahn
Planning Intern
•
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/20/98
Executive Summary
• In March 1998, the City Council created the Ad Hoc Land Conservation Committee to
research land conservation options available to local government and to design an
implementation program. The Committee's goal was to recommend a process to the City
Council that will permanently protect natural open space in Shorewood with. voluntary
land protection mechanisms while safeguarding private property rights.
The Committee compiled information about land with development potential in Shorewood
(Section 2). This data includes acreage, natural features, development potential, zoning,
and location relative to other open space. Ninety-seven vacant and 47 occupied parcels
with development potential were inventoried.
The Committee researched conservation tools and developed methods for conserving
land in Shorewood. For each option, the Committee's findings are described and its
appropriateness for Shorewood is discussed in Section 3.
Conservation easement and land donations
A conservation easement is a legal agreement in which landowners voluntarily limit
development on their property. Soliciting and accepting land and easement donations
meets the objectives of assisting voluntary private land conservation and protecting land
in perpetuity without the cost of buying easements or land. Because of the costs
associated with holding land and easements, donations should meet the City's criteria for
open space parcels.
Recommendations
• Accept land donations if there are few costs associated with holding the title, the local
tax base is not adversely affected, the property has conservation value, or an
easement donation is not feasible for the landowner.
• Accept perpetual conservation easement donations on land that meets the City's
criteria for important open space.
Land Registry Program
In a land registry program, landowners enroll their land with a conservation organization
and make a non-binding pledge to protect their land. Registered landowners are
recognized for their stewardship at a ceremony or other public event. Registry programs
are an inexpensive way to educate the public about land conservation.
Recommendation
Develop a registry program that is consistent with the City's open space goals and
financial resources.
Special Assessment Program for Private Open Space Acquisition
This program would loan money to citizens, so they can purchase open space in their
neighborhood. Interested citizens would be assessed for the cost of the property with
some interest. Assuming that a conservation easement is put on the land, open space
would be protected in perpetuity to the extent outlined in the easement agreement. A
special assessment program may be time consuming and difficult to administer.
Recommendations
• A special assessment program should be a low priority protection option, but it should
be employed when a group of neighbors want to buy an open space parcel in their
i
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/20/98
strongly recommends that citizens have opportunities to contribute meaningful input in the
planning and implementation of the Open Space Plan.
• The Land Conservation Committee suggests a number of steps and a timetable to further
develop the Open Space Plan. A visioning session will be necessary to ensure that the
Plan reflects the community's values. A working group(s) will be established that may
consist of Planning and Park Commissioners and citizens. Open space parcels in
Shorewood will be prioritized for protection. The planning process also will identify
funding sources for open space protection. Steps are outlined that should be taken to
implement the Plan. Implementation includes promoting the Plan, executing protection
tools, evaluating the Plan, and educating officials and residents on an on-going basis
about Shorewood's natural resources and the land protection options available to local
governments and private individuals.
Recommendations for Plan Administration
• The working group(s) should have citizen representation.
• Citizens should have meaningful input:
• When the community develops a vision of open space in Shorewood
• When criteria for selecting and ranking open space parcels are developed.
• In budgeting for acquisition of development rights or purchase of property.
• The role of the Planning and Park Commissions should be determined by the
Commissions and the City Council
Recommendations for Establishing a Land Conservation Organization
• The City should administer land protection programs rather than establish a new
nonprofit land conservation organization for protecting land in Shorewood.
• The City should partner with an existing land conservation organization if the following
circumstances arise: a quick sale, a parcel that requires intensive management, and
landowners that do not want to deal with the City.
Recommendations for Developing a Community Vision of Open Space and
Ranking Selection Criteria
• Hold a public meeting to develop a community vision of open space and to develop
and rank a list of criteria for prioritizing open space parcels.
• Invite the general public to the meeting through publicity.
• Send invitations for the meeting to people who have an interest in open space
issues.
Creating a Working Group(s)
The working group will develop an open space plan and administer the plan's land
protection programs, e.g., an acquisition program. The first task for the working group is to
educate the public about voluntary land conservation. Protection programs vary in their
ease of administration.
Easily administered protection programs are land registry and title and conservation
easement donation programs. Tasks required to administer these programs are to:
publicize programs, organize public ceremonies/events, develop and produce brochures
about the programs; organize public meetings, develop and produce education
iii
I 'Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/20/98
• Executive Summary
In March 1998, the City Council created the Ad Hoc Land Conservation Committee to
research land conservation options available to local government and to design an
implementation program. The Committee's goal was to recommend a process to the City
Council that will permanently protect natural open space in Shorewood-bywith voluntary
land protection mechanisms while safeguarding private property rights.
T-The Committee compiled information about land with development potential in
SForewood (Section 2). This data includes acreage, natural features, development
potential, zoning, and location relative to other open space. Ninety-seven vacant and 47
occupied parcels with development potential were inventoried.
I The Committee researched conservation tools and developed methods for conserving
land in Shorewood. For each option, the Committee's findings are described and its
appropriateness for Shorewood is discussed in Section 3.
Conservation easement and land donations
A conservation easement is a legal agreement in which landowners voluntarily limit
develo mentthe12and-use on their property. Soliciting and accepting land and easement
donations meets the objectives of assisting voluntary private land conservation and
protecting land in perpetuity without the cost of buying easements or land. Because of
the costs associated with holding land and easements, donations should meet the City's
criteria for open space parcels.
• Recommendations
• Accept land donations if there are few costs associated with holding the title, the local
tax base is not adversely affected, the property has conservation value, or an
easement donation is not feasible for the landowner.
• Accept perpetual conservation easement donations on land that meets the City's
criteria for important open space.
Land Registry Program
In a land registry program, landowners enroll their land with a conservation organization
and make a non-binding pledge to protect their land. Registered landowners are
recognized for their stewardship at a ceremony or other public event. Registry programs
are an inexpensive way to educate the public about land conservation.
Recommendation
Develop a registry program that is consistent with the City's open space goals and
financial resources.
I ivoml 8
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/20/98
Special Assessment Program for Private Open Space Acquisition
This program would loan money to citizens, so they can purchase open space in their
neighborhood. TheInterested citizens amwould be assessed for the cost of the property
with some interest. sssumi'ng that a conservati easement is put on the land, open
space would be protected in perpetuity to the extent outlined in the easement agreement.
A special assessment program may be time consuming and difficult to administer.
Recommendations
• A special assessment program should be a low priority protection option, but it should
be employed when a group of neighbors want to buy an open space parcel in their
neighborhood and the City can finance the purchase without compromising other City
needs.
• Require a perpetual conservation easement on open space property acquired through
a special assessment program.
Transfer of Development Rights Program (TDR)
In a TDR program, developers can buy development credits from people who own open
space. A conservation easement is put on the open space if the owner sells his or her
development rights to a developer. Because land with development potential is scattered
throughout the city establishing a sending and receiving area would be difficult, if not
impossible. TDR programs are best suited for agricultural areas that are undeveloped and
maunder pressure to become residential areas. TDR programs permanently protect open
space while compensating landowners who voluntarily restrict development on their
property.
Recommendation
A TDR program would be neither feasible nor desirable in Shorewood.
Purchase of Development Rights Program (PDR)
In a PDR program, the City would buy conservation easements on land that had been
identified as important open space. PDR programs permanently protect open space,
however the City must purchase conservation easements and dedicate staff time to
program administration.
Recommendations
• If the City secures a stable funding mechanism, a PDR program would be a feasible
and desirable land conservation tool in Shorewood.
• ThgA PDR program should be applied in a situation where the City cannot afford to
purcTiase an open space parcel outright or the landowner wishes to retain ownership.
I
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/20/98
Outright Purchase
• Outright acquisition allows the City to determine the current and future management of
open space.
Recommendations
• The criteria used to select open space parcels should be developed by citizens.
• As land is tax forfeited, the City should consider it for purchase.
• The Open Space Plan should identify funding sources, staffing responsibilities, and
long-term land management for an acquisition program.
• If a referendum is required, an educational campaign would be necessary to make
voters aware of the issues. Voters should have a clear understanding that their taxes
might go up and that not every open space parcel in every neighborhood will be
purchased.
Section 4 recommends a planning process that will develop the Open Space Plan. This
report represents the beginning of that process, and the report should be refined to
ultimately become Shorewood's Open Space Plan. The Land Conservation Committee
strongly recommends that citizens have opportunities to contribute meaningful input in the
planning and implementation of the Open Space Plan.
I The Land Conservation Committee su ests a number of steps and a timetable to further
develop the Open Space Plan. A visioning session will be necessary to ensure that the
• Plan reflects the community's values. A working group(s) will be established that may
consist of Planning and Park Commissioners and citizens. Open space parcels in
Shorewood will be prioritized for protection. The planning process also will identify
funding sources for open space protection. Steps are outlined that should be taken to
implement the Plan. Implementation includes promoting the Plan, executing protection
tools, evaluating the Plan, and educating officials and residents on an on-going basis
about Shorewood's natural resources and the land protection options available to local
governments and private individuals.
Recommendations for Plan Administration
• The working group(s) should have citizen representation.
• Citizens should have meaningful input:
• When the community develops a vision of open space in Shorewood
• When criteria for selecting and ranking open space parcels are developed. and whap
Gpon space p=ols are prioritized
I
• In budgeting for acquisition of development rights or purchase of property.
• The role of the Planning and Park Commissions should be determined by the
Commissions and the City Council.
Recommendations for Establishing a Land Conservation Organization
The City should administer land Rrotection programs rather than4ga establish a new
nonprofit land conservation organization or protecting FaRdinMorewood.
I HMO!
Land Conservation Committee Report
I
DRAFT 11/20/98
• The City should partner with an existing land conservation organization if the following
circumstances arise: a quick sale, a parcel that requires intensive management, and
landowners that do not want to deal with the City.
Recommendations for Developing a Community Vision of Open Space and
Ranking Selection Criteria
• Hold a, public meeting to develop a community vision of open space and to develop
and rank a list of criteria for prioritizing open space parcels.
• Invite the general public to the meeting through publicity.
• Send invitations for the meeting to people who have an interest in open space
issues.
Creating a Working Group(s)
The working group will develop an open sace plan and administer the plan's land
protection programs, e.., an acquisition program. a first tas or t e working rou is to
educate the public about voluntary an conservation. rotection programs vary in their
ease o administration.
Easily administered protection programs are land registry and title and conservation
easement donation programs. ass required to administer these programs are to:
publicize programs, organize public ceremonies events, eve o an produce brochures
about the ro rams; organize public meetin s, develop an produce education
• roc ures, write articles or newsletter an local news a ers consult one-on-one with
interested landowners; an develop criteria or accepting an an easement donations.
A moderately difficult to administer is a special assessment for residents' open space
ac uisition program. The tasks required its administration are to: develop criteria tor
ro ram e i r i i ; approve applications or ro ram; ne otiate assessment an easement
terms with petitioners; and identity tunding.
Difficult to administer programs are purchase of development rights and land acquisition
programs. Tasks require to manage these ro rams are to: eve o criteria or site
selection an rank parcels, review program applications an select eligible arce s or
programs; contact owners o high priority parcels; negotiate acquisition an easement
terms; monitor an en orce easement terms; secure unding; oversee the management and
maintenance o acquire open space; publicize program an develop an produce
brochures; an organize public meetings, develop an produce educational brochures
wnte articles or news etter an local newspapers, an consult one-on-one with interested
landowners.
Recommendations
• Establish a working group in the form of a steering committee, review board, or task
force to draft open space goals and objectives based on the community vision for
open space.
• The group should include Park and Planning Commissions liaisons as well as
citizens from all 4 precincts.
• The working group should immediately begin educating the public about land
conservation.
ivv+i~-~-1-a-~ I
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/20/98
The City should develop an Open Space Plan to be added to the Comprehensive Plan
that includes specific open space parcels to be protected, the conservation options to
protect the parcels, and funding for protection. The strongest tools that the City has to
protect the remaining natural open space in Shorewood are conservation easements and
land acquisition.
I
•
I v~
.Land Conservation Committee Report I
DRAFT 11/20/98
make the donation in a year when they expect a higher than average income.
. To lower the easement value, so that the full income tax deduction can be
utilized, one could put an easement on a portion of the property or limit only
some land use on the property.
An advantage of the City or a land conservation organization, e.g., The Nature
Conservancy, acquiring titles to open space parcels is public access to the
property: however- Again, conservation easement donations does not require I
public access because private landowners retain the title to the land.
Estate planning
The estate tax system is based on the value of assets including property
appraisals. When one spouse dies, marital exemptions are unlimited. Thus
upon dying, a spouse can give all wealth to the surviving spouse and the
surviving spouse pays no estate tax. In 1998, there is a $625,000 exemption for
• estate taxes for family or other recipients. The $625,000 exemption is
scheduled to increase to $1,000,000 by 2006. For heirs to receive estate tax
reductions from a conservation easement, the decedent must have donated the
easement during his or her life time and owned the property for 3 or more years
before death. There is an estate tax exclusion that is in addition to the reduction
from the taxable estate of the value of the easement. This additional exclusion
is limited to $100,000 in 1998, $200,000 in 1999, $300,000 in 2000, $400,000
in 2001, and $500,000 in 2002. (See Appendix L for a simple example.) The
value of land in an estate is subject to reduction if the value of the easement is
less than 30% of the value of the land. After reduction by the value of the
easement, 40% of the value of the land is the maximum estate tax exclusion for
a conservation easement donation.
In summary, there are three potential benefits from making a charitable
. donation of land or a conservation easement. The first is an income tax
1 _628 I
I Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/20/98
The LCC suggests a vision, goal, and objectives for the Open Space Plan. The
vision, goal, and objectives may be modified, added to, or completely rewritten
as seen fit by City officials and Shorewood residents that participate in the
visioning session. The suggested vision, goal, and objectives can be used as a
starting point for the visioning session. After being presented with the vision,
goal, and objectives, citizens could respond with approval, disapproval, or
neutrality.
Possible Vision for the Open Space Plan
It is important that we maintain the unique natural environment of Shorewood
for future generations. Shorewood will remain an attractive community in which
to live and recreate through an organized effort that encourages setting aside
open space.
Possible Goal for the Open Space Plan
. The City of Shorewood is more than 90% developed, and there is growing
pressure to build on the remaining undeveloped land. In order to balance this
economic pressure with the desire to protect open space, the City of
Shorewood will work with citizens and nonprofit land conservation
organizations to protect open space in conjunction with the City's existing
wetland and shoreland ordinances. The Open Space Plan will be implemented
in a way that respects landowner rights.
Possible Objectives for the Open Space Plan
• Educate City Council members and Shorewood residents about land
protection options with community meetings, newsletter articles, and
other communication mechanisms.
• Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include: a.) priority sites ranked with
input from citizens; b.) measurable objectives, such as half of the land
protected will be upland forest; and, c.) any other issues identified in the
Open Space Plan.
•
I 5-22-8
Land Conservation Committee Report
DRAFT 11/20/98
• Permanently protect one hundred acres of natural open space in
• Shorewood by 20054- (approximately one third of the undeveloped land
in Shorewood).
Criteria for prioritizing parcels
Selecting parcels eligible for a land or easement acquisition program should be
given careful consideration to avoid protecting areas that are not compatible
with the objectives of the Open Space Plan. If the City protects parcels that do
not seem to have conservation value, as defined by the community, the public
may perceive that the City does not care about public interests or values. In this
situation, the City will be criticized and the Open Space Plan's credibility will be
questioned. Ultimately, community support for the Plan would decline and use
of the protection tools would also decline, in part because they are voluntary.
So, defining the criteria to be used to rank and eventually select open space
parcels to be protected should be carefully considered.
In site selection, there are more factors to consider than just a site's
• conservation value. The City of Maplewood put its criteria for rating open space
into a number of categories:
• Location
• Linear corridor/linkage
• Number of residences in immediate area
• Esthetic value
• Ecological factors
• Unique natural resource
• Public action necessary
• Harmony with Comprehensive Plan
• Special opportunities
• Public access
• Multiple open space use
• Suitability of trails
6024 I
11/25/98 17:03 FAX 612 333 2839 JABS GERRIG & CO C' f
X01
lcacsimile Cover sheet
•
Nabs, Gehrig & Company
Professional Appraisers and Valuation Consultants
1710 Intetm lion3l Cemtre - 900 Second Avenue South , Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Dim= (612) 333-2612 Fan: (612) 333-2839
To: Brad Nielson
Company: Shorewood
Phone: 474-3236
Fax: 474-0128
From: Dennis W. Jabs
Company: Jabs, Gehrig & Company
Phone: 612.333-2612
Fax: 612.333-2839
• Date: 1 1 /25/98
Pages including
this cover page:3
Comments:
Brad, please bring this fax to your Monday morning meeting with Dean Riesen. I promised Dean
you would deliver this information to him at your meeting. Thanks!
Please mete:
The eontente of this fox has not been sang via the U.S. Postal Sarvlee sinless specifkaUy
indicated above.
The information contained in this fav transmittal may be confsdeada4 away be subject to the
attorney-client privilege and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the
reader is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this
imformation to the named recipient, you are nokfied that this is not a waiver of privilege and any
dissemination, distribution or copying of ibis information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmittal in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at the
number indicated above and return this transmittal to the sender via the U.S. Postal Service at the
address noted above. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated and we apologize for any
inconvenience this may have caused you.
11/25/98 17:03 FAX 612 333 2839 JABS GEHRIG & CO X102
•
Example of Donation Valuation
F c
Property area: Vacanttlot 20,0092 square feet, homestead tot 34,691 square feet.
currant use: one oftle =faR* r68ldenCe ("a $urvey attached).
Existing zoning: R-1 C. Single-famly residential
Minimum lot size: 20,000 square feat: 100' width: 120' deP~-
Aseassors value: Vacant lot $40.000 land; homestead lot 545.000 land. 578.000 structure.
Development potential: no additional lots: vacant lot is suitable for one single4amly home.
Valuation
2
Value Before Donation 5183,600
Value After Ocnadon $165,000
Amount Donated $30.500
on
Yalult Before Donallm VgIuM After Donati
land $45,000 31% Land $56,000 35%
Structures S190.000 12.%L Structures L1129ma 25-S
Total $145.000 100% Total $165,000 100%
Fadre tat o- FXtra Lot
Total $165,500 Total $155,000
V ue of E~i_!
Retal Lot Value $45,000
Lase Development Casts $0
Surrey a Platting
City Fees $0
$ 0
Road tmprovementa
Selling Costs (10%) (S4.5 41
Net Lot Value $40,500
•
11/25/98
17;03 FAX 612 333 2839 JABS GEHRIG & CO {gyp
Ay'
150 00 OPT'
t8` (23)
17) a ,.47. 12 !:'r'•o1' 1 ~.J ,Le\-°' g.-y1--•-~~°
ti . m # } • o• (24)
E J f 2J.
4
iV 9 1 _ i - 7 f ( 21"
~ \ i . % ill t~{f h
r92.~, / q - / -
=o \ , ~ (29) y is l4? _
I ~9 r a~•
g s g LOT sue" L s ad) 1
tN,, r~ 05 0
9s c (10;
: a (2) -
"(30) J... e<+g r18 NORTH ~ to
s - - 3) ~ oi' na e ti't'.s~`` (35) '00 1,a Ar
' (t s) -r'' ' ~a'' i3, l 4 I 1" = 200
tQT 10
i7 t (4 1 P / r 1 t>j `~-f nP.' i:' h • -s'
O6•DS 7'y4'~•7i. '"~a' _ o t ei 3 I w..
~ '•I~ .a•" ~ ~ ° i?i: { 7,) a 2+1 5 a~ 8 al
O ,~p~, .'•P ~3t~33+c \\_'_8p5 'V"` m , l_~ y lti_~ T'r ti .=7t
h - r-- -+-r a as S9 I
4 eP h\ 217.22 1 t20~ 1C I - ~qQ) i EAC, v; •
..9.82 - - Iii''-'~'` (~~i a3 ~••.~.i `D C"? - 3
(4r) ! y~(y
e ~~s (52) 1 ¢ it C. 91 2'SI'iL W
Ott,
7) ~9 4,C9
S e9, dd (49`1 30
54
~(ss~ (57) P r Vacant
55) parcel ~(ss)~ AL.
r A
Pw, :F
r_- T X14 \/L
t! 104.o_w 135 _ (40)
q t `2 23 I. - "~V - Homestead parcel
IFc t'''yna. s~y -•t v' 11I
24
7,1
_ (21! s~ % 1
7 LW U
(r 5; i ( I Exhibit B
- zz I SITE LOCATION
LOT Dahlberg PrOgerty 11 Q4
a 1 .16'
:U ACD ' I (p R ~ ' rfi 164