The Conservation Program Handbook : A Guide for Local Government Land Acquisition [1 ed.] 9781610911290, 9781597266666

Citation preview

THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM HANDBOOK

THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM HANDBOOK

A Guide for Local Government Land Acquisition

S A N DR A T A S S E L

Washington | Covelo | Lond on

Copyright © 2009 The Trust for Public Land All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009. ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of the Center for Resource Economics.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tassel, Sandra. The conservation program handbook : a guide for local government land acquisition / Sandra Tassel. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-59726-652-9 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-59726-652-3 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-1-59726-666-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-59726-666-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Conservation of natural resources–United States–Planning. 2. Natural areas–Government policy–United States. 3. Conservation projects (Natural resources)–United States–Management. 4. Local government–United States. I. Trust for Public Land (U.S.) II. Title. S930.T37 2009 333.720973--dc22 2009018047

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents Case Studies and Sidebars ................................................................................................ix Foreword ...............................................................................................................................xi Preface .................................................................................................................................xiii Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................xv

CHAPTER I

Introduction ....................................................................................................2

CHAPTER II

Laying the Groundwork for Protecting Land ......................................12

CHAPTER III

Advisory Committees ..............................................................................36

CHAPTER IV

Staffing ..........................................................................................................58

CHAPTER V

Project Selection ..........................................................................................74

CHAPTER VI

Criteria ..........................................................................................................98

CHAPTER VII

Identification and Application Policies and Process ....................118

CHAPTER VIII

Due Diligence and Documentation ................................................140

CHAPTER IX

Leverage and Partnerships ....................................................................148

CHAPTER X

Transaction Design ..................................................................................170

CHAPTER XI

Land Management and Stewardship...................................................186

CHAPTER XII

Communications ....................................................................................214

CHAPTER XIII

Conclusion ..............................................................................................226

Endnotes ............................................................................................................................228 Appendix I ........................................................................................................................230 Appendix II.......................................................................................................................234 Resources ...........................................................................................................................236 Index...................................................................................................................................240

Case Studies and Sidebars Center for Whole Communities: Fostering a New Understanding of Success..................14 Santa Fe County, New Mexico: Benefits of Conservation Planning ...................................16 Conservation Visioning: TPL Helps Communities Create a Plan for Action ................18 Jacksonville Florida: Pulling Together a Plan Promptly........................................................20 GIS: What is It and How Does It Support Conservation?......................................................22 Litchfield Hills, CT: A Regional Approach to Regional Challenges .....................................26 Wake County, North Carolina: Creating a Unified Effort

Among Varied Participants............................................................................................................32 Clarkstown, New York: Not Every Program Needs a Permanent Committee ..................38 San Juan County, Washington: Some Committees Run the Show ....................................43 Jacksonville, Florida: The Preservation Project.......................................................................46 Santa Fe County, New Mexico: One Appointment Model ...................................................50 Colorado Springs, Colorado: Dealing with Community Concerns

Through Committee Design .........................................................................................................52 Miami-Dade County, Florida: A Committee Ensures that the Spirit and

Meaning of the Measure Are Followed ......................................................................................54 Gallatin County, Montana: Conservation Results with a Conservative

Level of Staffing ................................................................................................................................67 San Antonio, Texas: What Entity Can Best Negotiate Transactions .................................69 Ipswich, Massachusetts: One Person Makes a Big Difference ............................................73 King County, Washington: Reconciling Regional and Local Protection Priorities ........78 TPL’s “Greenprinting”: Bringing Science and Local Input

Together to Set Priorities ...............................................................................................................82 Volusia County, Florida: Selecting Projects to Maximize Match Funding ........................86 Valuation During the Selection Process ....................................................................................89 Dane County, Wisconsin: A Framework for Fast Focused Action ......................................95 Criteria: How Much Specificity Is Right?..................................................................................100 Leverage: Matching Money and the Realities of the Market ..............................................101 Measures of Success: From Center for Whole Communities..........................................103 Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, California: Weighting Based on Voter Wishes.....................................................................105 Roseland/Santa Rosa, California: Sometimes There Is an Obvious Best Property ....108 James City County, Virginia: Protecting The Best Lands in the First County ...............112 Numeric Ranking: Ways to Make It Work.................................................................................114

ix

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Volusia County, Florida: Using a Two-tiered System .............................................................117 Colorado Springs, Colorado: There are Exceptions to Every Rule ...................................121 Colorado Springs, Colorado: Putting a Blended Approach to Work ...............................123 Larimer County, Colorado: One Approach to Review and Approve a Project ..............128 Landowner Notification: Support from Professionals............................................................132 Santa Fe County, New Mexico: The Ins and Outs of One Urgent

Application Process........................................................................................................................138 Roles of Partners in Land Aquisition .........................................................................................151 Wake County, North Carolina: Creating Municipal Partners and Partnerships..............155 Whatcom County, Washington and Whatcom Land Trust:

A Community and a Nonprofit Grow a Green Network of Conserved Lands ............157 Finding a Land Trust to Partner with Your Program ..........................................................160 Metro Greenways, Minnesota: Conservation Objectives Create

Better Development......................................................................................................................166 Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: Regulation Plays a

Role in Conserving Land and Cleaning Up a Watershed...................................................168 Burlington County, New Jersey: Keeping Farming Alive in the Garden State ..............173 Burlington County, New Jersey: Using Installment Purchase Agreements to

Preserve Farmland..........................................................................................................................176 Provide the First Financial Commitment..................................................................................177 Volusia County, Florida: Flexible Approach Gets Deals Done...........................................179 Getting the Right Rights ................................................................................................................184 Woodstock, Illinois: Caring for a Special Place Without Hiring Special Staff...............189 Sources of Funding for Land Management ............................................................................192 LandPaths, Sonoma County, California: Learning to Love the Land ..............................198 Friends of Cedar River Watershed, Seattle, Washington: A Nonprofit Brings the

Power of the People ......................................................................................................................202 The Voices of Experience: Land Trusts Surveyed About Easement Violations............205 Gallatin County, Montana: Handing Over Easement Responsibilities ............................210 Working with the Media ..................................................................................................................218 Burlington County, New Jersey: Peddling Produce and Protection .................................221 Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, California:

Listening, Learning, and Succeeding ........................................................................................224

x

Foreword IN 2008—despite a dramatically sinking economy—voters in communities nationwide approved a record level of funding for state and local conservation. These results confirmed once again that Americans will reach into their pockets to protect clean water, wildlife habitat, natural areas, environmentally sensitive lands, open space, farmland and working ranches, parks, and trails. Since 1996, voters of all stripes—conservative and liberal, Republican, Democratic, and Independent, urban and rural, affluent and less well-to-do, in communities large and small— have approved nearly 1,500 state and local conservation finance ballot measures that created more than $25 billion in new funding for land conservation. Many of these ballot initiatives were passed with the help of The Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Finance program or the Conservation Campaign, TPL’s lobbying affiliate. But once the funds are approved, many counties or communities face important questions about how to implement the new conservation program. What should be the criteria in deciding which farmland and wildlife habitat to protect? Who should be making these decisions? How can voters be assured that they’ll have a say in decision-making and that the tax they imposed on themselves will be spent wisely to protect cherished natural resources in their community? The purpose of this handbook is to provide answers to these and other questions for counties and communities as they seek to establish a new conservation program or evaluate an existing one. It provides guidelines drawn from best practices of successful local government conservation programs nationwide and includes tried-and-true advice on topics such as setting up a citizen advisory group, program staffing levels, devising project application forms, and the legal due diligence required when acquiring land. TPL’s goal in creating the handbook is to make sure that voter support for conservation is translated into accountable conservation programs that inspire trust between those voters and their governments. In urging the voters to say “yes” to conservation, TPL has become aware that the key to passing new conservation funding measures is a demonstrated success in spending funds from past ones. To date, voters in 36 counties have followed up an initial commitment to conservation by passing two or more additional measures—largely because they saw that their money was spent well, important open lands were protected, and parks and nature preserves were well managed and carefully maintained. Helping communities build strong, successful, and accountable conservation programs is one of the best ways we know to help them protect their most precious places for future generations. Will Rogers, President The Trust for Public Land xi

Preface Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead, Anthropologist (1901–1978) THE GROUNDWORK FOR THIS BOOK was laid back in 1990, when I joined the staff of The Trust for Public Land (TPL) as its representative in Colorado. Then, as now, economic times were tough, particularly in that corner of the country. Colorado was suffering an energy bust that had emptied hundreds of communities of the people who had so recently rushed in to develop oil shale and natural gas. People were losing their homes as foreclosures rose and whole neighborhoods were drained of their residents, leaving behind weedy yards and plummeting real estate values. The downward spiral of housing values pulled other parts of the economy down, too, and my hometown of Colorado Springs, 60 miles south of Denver, was one of the places hurting. Ironically, for me—newly metamorphosed from real estate agent to full-time conservationist—this was a kind of boom time. Special, irreplaceable places across the state that had been threatened with development and assumed lost were suddenly available for conservation. Collectively, Colorado residents were getting a second chance to save the landscapes that defined our lives. Traditionally, Coloradans had looked to the federal and state governments for the protection of natural lands. But federal agencies had neither the funding nor direction to conserve the kinds of close-to-home resources we cared about, and the state agencies couldn’t possibly have met all of the citizens’ conservation aspirations. Conservationists recognized that local governments would have to step forward if the bust was going to be a boon for parks, trails, water, habitat, and open space. One early—and some would say unlikely—victory came in Colorado Springs, which had undergone a head-spinning amount of change in the 15 years I had lived there. Development had raced out in all directions, consuming many iconic landscapes and prompting protest from many residents. I believed that voters would be willing to tax themselves to protect their unique, beloved, imminently threatened landscapes. But Colorado Springs was noted for its tax-averse, conservative political climate, and at first people scoffed at the idea that voters would approve of a funding source for conservation. But visionary and committed citizens and leaders made the case for conservation by creating the city’s first Open Space Plan, and voters subsequently approved the city’s Trails, Open Space and Parks (TOPS) ballot measure to implement the vision. TOPS, passed with help from TPL’s Conservation Finance program, xiii

B. JEFFERSON BOLENDER

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Pikes Peak, Colorado Springs’ famous landmark.

was an important catalyst for other communities, which were emboldened by Colorado Springs’ success. In the years since, Colorado Springs has protected some truly signature landscapes, and voters have extended the conservation funding program tax by increasingly large percentages. The success of the Colorado Springs program—and similar successful efforts— was the original inspiration for this book. The residents of Colorado Springs showed that Margaret Mead was right in her assessment of how change happens. I wanted to help other communities to achieve their dreams of change for the better, and I wondered what knowledge might be transferable from successful conservation programs to new or struggling ones. What were the ingredients that allowed one community to achieve its ambitious visions of parks and open space after funding was approved, while others could not? Over the last several decades, TPL’s Conservation Finance program has gathered a skilled, professional cadre of election experts and researchers who have mastered the techniques necessary to secure the public’s support for communitybased conservation financing. But it has become evident to them, as it did to me in Colorado, that local governments need to know how to succeed once the money is in place. Repeatedly TPL’s experts have been asked: “We have money; now what?” The goal of this book is to answer that question—to support the inspiring conservation work that goes on every day, everywhere that someone says, “We won’t let the land we love be lost.” Sandra Tassel Look at the Land Inc. Silver Spring, Maryland xiv

Acknowledgments LAND CONSERVATION professionals are the nicest people. Without help from professionals in government agencies, nonprofits, and consulting firms, this book would have remained simply a good idea. That the idea progressed to the book you are holding in your hand is a tribute to the collective contributions of many more people than I have space to name here. I am grateful to every one of them, but particularly to the staff, elected officials, and volunteers of the 22 conservation programs profiled in the book, whose selfless sharing of their time and thoughts helped bring this project to fruition. A core group of Trust for Public Land (TPL) employees also deserves credit for making this book possible. They helped me at various stages of the book’s development—many of them contributed many hours over several years, from initial suggestions regarding programs to research, to reviewing the material through multiple drafts, to advising me on the recommendations that form the core of the book. Special mention must go to Ernest Cook, whose invaluable vision and fundraising expertise made the project possible, and Will Abberger, on whose steady oversight I depended throughout the project. Other TPL advisors included Steve Thompson, Kathy Blaha, Bowen Blair, Val Talmadge, Erik Kulleseid, Cordelia Pierson, Matt Zieper, Peter Harnik, Nissa Maddox, Tim Raphael, Adam Eichberg, Bill Lee, Pete Fodor, Andrew DuMoulin, Caryn Ernst, Milton Ospina, and Peggy Chiu. In addition to the support I received from TPL staff, I benefited from the advice and experience of some of the country’s most knowledgeable conservation professionals who helped me formulate the recommendations. Marty Zeller, Dan Pike, John Howell, Tom Byers, Peter Stein, Chuck Flink, Larry Kueter, Gene Duvernoy, Lesley Ratley-Beach, Andy Strauss and Tamara Van Ryn all played an important role at some stage of the book’s development. The project was fortunate to receive support from the Evans School of Public Administration at the University of Washington. Graduate student Yoko Matsumoto and faculty advisor Professor David Harrison developed and implemented a survey of county programs nationwide. Their careful analysis of the results, which was vetted by all the members of Yoko’s class, added immensely to the quality of this book. Invaluable review of the book’s first draft was provided by land conservation professionals Peggy Booth, K-Lynn Cameron, Pegeen Hanrahan, Kevin Tanski, Luther Probst, David Reed, Charles McKinney, Nissa Maddox, Erik Kulleseid and Cordelia Pierson. I am grateful for the counsel and assistance of TPL’s publications staff, especially Debra Summers, Matt Shaffer and Bill Poole, who coached me through the intricacies of the editing and publication processes. Patrice Gallagher and Amanda xv

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Wood, of Gallagher/Wood Design, the book’s designers, were patient counselors while we developed the book’s look and feel. The visual appeal of this publication is the result of the hard work of Nancy Biskovitch, Anne Nelson and Gerri Comeau at TPL, and the contributions from the profiled programs plus dozens of professional and skilled amateur photographers who donated their work to promote land conservation. None of this would have brought the book into your hands without the support of my family and friends. My husband, Craig Lee, remained enthusiastic throughout the research, countless drafts and publication dramas. My friend Lisa Blacker became an invaluable colleague, helping me through the final steps toward publication. And I am particularly grateful that my mother is a skilled writer and retired college English teacher. She was my most trusted editor. I am in debt to Peter Stein, who was an original proponent of the idea for this publication and brought the manuscript to the attention of Island Press at a time when I despaired of ever seeing it become a real book. Finally, a big thank you to the publisher’s staff and board, who saw that this compilation of wisdom from the conservation field might help others protect the landscapes we all cherish. Sandra Tassel Look at the Land Inc. Silver Spring, Maryland

xvi

C H APTER

I

JERRY AND MARCY MONKMAN

Introduction

ON ELECTION DAY, a community passes a measure that will fund a new land conservation program. The supporters of this measure celebrate, go to sleep, and wake up happy the next day. However, as they pick up the champagne bottles and recycle the campaign posters, they start to realize that a new challenge lies ahead. Now that the voters have approved the funding to protect cherished land, a program must be created to spend the allocated monies in the most efficient and productive way possible. These conservationists have pressing and important work to do. In some communities, of course, the people who work to pass the measure understand before the vote that getting money is only the beginning. The people who design a program most often start their work by looking to established programs for advice. They collect sample documents, legislation, and policy manuals and use these as a basis for their new program. However, this approach has its pitfalls. For one thing, it is time-consuming, and, as any conservationist can tell you, time lost equals land lost, especially in areas where the pressure for development is intense. A more serious drawback of this approach is that the programs used as models may not be the best ones 2

INTRODUCTION

3

to emulate. People who are launching a new program may not know all the results produced by the agency whose procedures are being used as a model. Thus they may reproduce expensive mistakes, unnecessary  bureaucracy, or unproductive policies, and they risk perpetuating ineffective practices. A program can be Programs used as large or well established without being a good model to follow. For these reasons, it might be wiser, espe- models by new programs cially for a small, new entity, not to use other agencies may not be the best ones as models. to emulate. A similar dilemma confronts people who manage existing programs and want to assess their past per formance or evaluate ways to improve their future efforts. Community leaders and program staff search for appropriate measurement techniques and methods. Until now, it appeared that the only valid approach was to compare procedures and progress with those of other agencies. But, in a similar way, you cannot really know whether the comparison is valid. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLICATION This handbook, produced by The Trust for Public Land (TPL), seeks to eliminate the need for original research by local government programs that will be creating or upgrading policies to guide public investments in land for a range of natural, cultural, and recreational purposes. It presents the results of extensive investigations into local land acquisition agencies around the United States. To create this publication, we studied communities of various sizes with programs that protect many kinds of natural resources. However, this book is not merely a compilation of sample documents and a list of the techniques currently in use. Instead, experienced land conservation experts from around the country, led by a team of TPL staff, with experience in local government, land trusts, planning, law, and real estate, have provided their wisdom and advice to advance land protection work at the local government level. Their input and the information from the communities that were studied have been distilled into the recommendations you will find throughout this publication. (See Appendix I for the names of the interviewees.) Both common and unusual strategies for conservation success were studied in order to create the practices we recommend here for local government land conservation programs. These strategies have been proven to yield good results and can therefore be trusted as cornerstones for new programs. Each key chapter provides a list of best practices, which present essential recommendations and show how at least one successful program has approached the chapter’s topic. The Trust for Public Land, the funders, the author, and all the contributors want to help citizens, elected officials, agency staff, and nonprofits involved in land

4

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

© 2009 JUPITERIMAGES CORPORATION

protection to establish as many good acquisition programs as they can, as quickly as possible. Doing so will protect more of this country’s special places by saving public dollars and making those dollars available more rapidly. Securing the passage of a funding referendum is a huge After passing a financing measure communities ask “We challenge for most communihave money, now what?” ties. It is the subject of a useful reference work, The Conservation Finance Handbook, also published by TPL.1 This new publication begins where that handbook leaves off: it discusses the practices that follow the success of the funding measure and serves as a useful guide for reviewing or assessing established programs. Much of the work described here can be done before the election. Efforts to shape the program beforehand may actually strengthen the cause and create greater momentum for voter approval. Elected officials, citizens, and local government staff frequently draft language to guide the implementation of a program before the measure. You can use this handbook to guide the creation of the implementation steps in advance. If you do, it may give the voting public confidence that the planned program will be effective, accountable, and consistent with the goals described during the campaign. USE AND ADAPT WHAT YOU NEED FROM EACH CHAPTER In an attempt to cover all common elements, this handbook includes some information that applies only to certain parts of the country. This is a diverse nation, governed by diverse state and local governments that follow their own laws. Not all topics are relevant to all communities or programs, nor is the order in which they are presented always right for a given community or program, so use what you can. Also, although this handbook was written for local governments, many of its recommendations are applicable to state programs as well. Depending on the capacities of government where you live or work, you may find that this handbook addresses topics that seem unnecessary or irrelevant. However, if you are starting, expanding, restructuring, or making significant changes in a program—such as adding staff for the first time—we suggest that you examine each chapter with an open mind. You may find techniques or approaches that will improve your operations. Improved functioning means more conservation per dollar and programs that better meet conservation objectives.

INTRODUCTION

5

WHAT IS A GOOD PROGRAM? To develop the best practices that are recommended in this publication, we had to define the overarching program characteristics we hoped to reproduce and encourage. Broadly speaking, the objective was to find and analyze agencies that are successfully protecting resources, regardless of their particular local goals and objectives. More specifically, we focused on the three qualities listed below as the fundamental definition of a good acquisition program. Our best-practices recommendations are based on programs that exhibited the following characteristics: Effectiveness. Effective programs are achieving the purposes for which they were

created and funded. Often these purposes are set forth in a park or open-space master plan, or in another document that was the foundation of the finance measure. Effective programs spend their acquisition funds strategically on the best possible projects, protected properties are properly managed, and the public benefits as promised. The protection tools these programs use are the ones most appropriate for the resource type, the real estate market, and the regional political realities. Efficiency. The efficiency of a program is determined by the proportion of public

funding actually invested in conservation and stewardship, as opposed to many other possible and necessary expenses, such as salaries, equipment, and other overhead. Efficient programs leverage their funding through locally appropriate mechanisms such as matching funds, bargain sales, purchases of less-than-fee interests in real estate (such as conservation easements), and partnerships. Each taxpayer dollar achieves its maximum conservation effect through careful management of the program’s limited monies. Respect. Respect for a program reflects both the program’s conservation successes and the relationship it has built with the community it serves. The long-term survival of the program and its ability to secure ongoing funding depend on public perception. Respected programs feature policies that are responsive, respectful, and realistic. These gain support from voters, elected officials, funders, partners, and landowners.

The author sought out programs around the country that exhibited these three attributes so that their policies and procedures could be analyzed. Conservation leaders provided the names of local agencies they perceived as fitting this profile. Twenty-two of these agencies plus several nonprofit conservation organizations are featured as case studies to provide true stories from programs that have successfully gone through their startup phases and appear to match the definition of good programs, or have especially useful approaches to specific issues. In many chapters, points are clarified by case studies, by advice from an expert on a particular challenge, or by examples showing how one community implemented a specific best practice.

6

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Best practices were developed from information gathered in one-on-one interviews with community leaders, public employees, elected officials, land trust staff, and transaction consultants around the country. In addition, insights into the most effective methods of acquiring land were gathered from staff at several conservation nonprofits that were involved directly in land protection transactions, from experts who have advised new programs during their startup phases and by examining documents from dozens of other programs. (A complete list of interviewees and programs studied can be found in Appendices I and II.) Thus, these interviews with agency staff and experts provided the basis for the recommendations that follow. These recommendations allow the post-election-day celebration to continue without concern. If they are incorporated into policy and action, they will produce the first transaction closing—and, in its wake, a new celebration party—more quickly. They can also serve as reliable yardsticks to measure the effectiveness, efficiency, and respon- Dane County WI was one of the programs studied because of its award-winning siveness of existing programs. program. We decided not to write about failures, missed opportunities, or errors—no matter how sad or illustrative they were— even though we did study such situations. Rather, this publication focuses on the lessons that can be learned from their possibly disappointing results. To help your program avoid the pitfalls that have made other programs less successful than they might have been, this publication presents advice in a generally positive form, without detailing the mishaps from which the lessons have been derived. Numerical and statistical data were collected with the assistance of Yoko Matsumoto, a graduate student at the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Administration, who conducted a mail survey of 140 counties with park and open space programs and subsequent phone conversations. The results of her research were summarized in an unpublished report titled “Local Land Conservation Efforts: A Study of Selected County Programs in the United States.”2 Excerpts from this report are part of several chapters. GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS In the interviews for this handbook, we found both good news and bad news for this publication. The good news? People were eager to share the lessons and the wisdom that came from their experiences. And, by and large, the programs con-

STEVE SALT (WWW.STEVESALT.US)

GATHERING THE DATA

7

serve properties that both shape community character and are important to citizens. The bad news for this handbook and its readers is that the land protection methods used by these communities are as diverse as the resources, cultures, and histories of the nation’s towns, cities, and countryside. Thus the experts’ advice could not be synthesized into one The goal of this book is to produce more conservation recipe for success that successes and celebrations. could be used everywhere. However, their suggestions can be brought together in a menu of options. In the chapters that follow, we present these options. If more than one approach produces good results, we have provided both, knowing that local customs, political style, and other factors will determine the choice in any one jurisdiction. GUIDING PRINCIPLES Good programs share certain traits. Although policies and politics vary greatly around the country, the most exemplary programs share some universal values. These principles guided the development of the implementation strategies and procedures that we recommend here. Though the best practices sections show how successful programs do their conservation work, the general principles described in this chapter show why certain procedures and policies are in place. The principles that you will read below come from the recommendations of experts and from the many warnings and stories we heard in the interviews. Since these principles are central to almost all the good programs we examined, they are acknowledged throughout this handbook. Guiding Principles

Balance between flexibility and accountability Fairness to all parties Transparent processes Clear procedures Good value to the community Public involvement Responsiveness to stakeholders

NINA TALMOUR

INTRODUCTION

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

KEN SHERMAN

8

Successful land conservation programs are reducing the amount of land lost to development and helping to ensure that growth is directed to less ecologically sensitive locations.

EXPLANATION OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES Communities manifest these general principles as they work toward their land protection objectives. It is worthwhile to explore the meanings and implications of these principles, because they underlie the best practices for implementation. Balance between flexibility and accountability. There may be tension between, on

the one hand, sufficient flexibility to operate in the private real estate market and, on the other hand, accountability, which is important whenever public funds are involved. A commitment to a balance between the two helps communities build good reputations with landowners and with project partners who help the program achieve maximal effectiveness and efficiency and use public monies wisely. Programs that overemphasize accountability can find it difficult to spend their money because the leaders are afraid to make the wrong choices. Project selection and acquisition become complicated. Some preservation opportunities may be lost, and some acquisitions may become unnecessarily expensive. Sometimes landowners who are ready to sell cannot determine the real likelihood of a public purchase of their property and therefore look for quicker private sales. The cost to the public rises because sellers who wait through lengthy procedures expect to be compensated for the time and other costs involved in a sale to a public agency. On the other hand, agencies that focus too much on accommodating landowners will be too flexible in their efforts to make a deal. They may risk both the reputations of their programs and the public money they spend. Lack of caution can result in unwise expenditures, which affect a property’s ability to serve its public purpose or a program’s ability to protect natural resources in the future. Balance

INTRODUCTION

9

represents a point somewhere between a “shoot-from-the-hip” strategy and “analysis paralysis.” Fairness to all parties. Fairness means that leaders value a program’s reputation and the quality of key relationships. This is often manifested through a “willing seller” policy that forbids the use of condemnation. Admittedly, if the program works only with landowners who voluntarily agree to sell, relationships must be built and patience must be exercised to complete a strategic suite of acquisitions. The principle of fairness also implies that the program will not try to wring every last dollar from negotiations with landowners or with other public or private entities that are partners in transactions or management. A desire to be fair will also reduce the urge to get every possible concession from other parties. Respectful collaboration with other governmental conservation programs, private land trusts, and citizens groups pays valuable long-term dividends. Fair dealing promotes long-term success and acceptance of the program by landowners, funders, partners, voters, and constituents. Transparent processes. Trust is built throughout the community when everyone knows how decisions are made. A set of rules is established to serve the public good, and those rules are applied universally, regardless of the social status of the landowner or in whose district the land is located. An additional indicator of transparency is that anyone can easily find out the rules that govern the program and how those rules are applied. However, this does not mean that landowners’ private financial and legal matters should be discussed publicly beyond legal disclosure requirements. Clear procedures. Successful programs generally have a straightforward and predictable system of steps for each transaction, from project identification through closing. A description of the program’s procedures should be made available to everyone and must be easy to understand. This principle does not promote utter simplicity, but it discourages the creation of a maze of regulations that hinder the participation of landowners, partners, and the public. Beginning with the formation of the advisory committee (if one is planned), each step of creating the program should be publicized when it is completed, and its benefit to the public should be made clear. Good value to the community. This principle covers much more than financial value. Programs that work to produce a variety of benefits create the most meaningful results for the most people. The best way of measuring value is seeing how well each dollar spent helps achieve the public’s land protection goals. For example, if the most important thing to the citizens is protecting access to the swimming hole where generations have spent their summer days, securing that particular tract will most likely produce the greatest long-term community benefit even if other parcels are larger and cost less. Urban gardens, trails, and waterfront lands

10

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

often cost the public more per acre but provide greater community value. Projects in high-growth suburban areas and redeveloping urban ones also may be under an urgent “now or never” threat of being lost to development. Powerful demonstrations of community value can be seen in places such as community gardens, where a site has brought people together and changed their lives. Public involvement. A program that belongs to the community has staying power. People will want to see it succeed and will support its projects politically, financially, and physically through volunteer work. This kind of support and participation will make all program activities easier—from fundraising, through negotiations, to future referendums, property maintenance, and programming. Involvement can mean activities as varied as these:       

Engagement in developing the plans that guide acquisitions Participation in nominating possible purchases Voicing opinions in public hearings Contributing funds for an acquisition Organizing a campaign to extend the program’s revenue source Volunteering for land management activities Celebrating milestones such as real estate closings, groundbreakings,and ribbon cuttings

SUSAN LAPIDES

Adhering to this principle will help leaders who are designing a new program find ways to get people and groups involved. Many communities have found that the process of creating their land conservation plan offered an opportunity and method to involve the public. (We will discuss planning in the next chapter.) If you are reading this handbook before going to the voters for program funding, try to include money to underwrite the development of your community vision. Experts suggest budgeting between $50,000 and $100,000 for an effort that incorporates extensive public input.

Getting constituents out on the land is a great way to build support.

INTRODUCTION

11

Responsiveness to stakeholders. The popularity and sustainability of any public program depend on its reputation with its constituents. The principles we outline here create public confidence, but both proactive and reactive communications about the program are also necessary. Good work must be accompanied by a willingness to talk and write about it. Being responsive means that constituents can get answers to their questions and easily get the information they need to participate knowledgeably. Responsiveness also means a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and priorities that are discovered through input from stakeholders.

SPECIAL INGREDIENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS To succeed in your particular community, you must identify the special factors that need to influence the design and function of your program. We found that the factors listed below had a great influence on successful programs. Regional culture. Local perspectives on land, money, politics, government, and

public property affect the creation of every program. Local knowledge and culture must be taken into consideration at all levels of program design. The people who design the program must have a clear sense of community concerns, shared interests, and common values so that the program’s policies are appropriate and will be supported. Throughout this publication, we refer to two of the most common examples: private property rights and distrust of government “bureaucracy.” Community size. Population numbers and density, land area, and total budget all

affect the structure of a program. Working in a large metropolitan county is very different from working in a small rural town. A smaller community may rely heavily on volunteers, may only be able to consider properties for acquisition once or twice a year, and may not be able to hire full-time staff, whereas a community with a large population and a substantial program budget may, for example, have to invest heavily in policing their public lands or having staff to coordinate with other municipal departments. Funding level and longevity. Naturally, most program strategies and work priori-

ties are strongly influenced by the amount of money available each year and over the life of the program. Wherever it is relevant, this handbook will provide descriptions of the ways in which the available funding and the program term may affect the design of the program. The special considerations listed above should be like lenses through which you study this handbook’s recommendations. As you read the best practices sections and review the case studies, try to think about ways in which you can tailor our general recommendations to your program and your community.

C H APTER

II

ARNA PHOTOGRAPHY

Laying the Groundwork for Protecting Land

WE USE THE WORD “groundwork” to encompass the range of activities that underpin the successful programs we studied. There were some characteristic steps they had all taken, despite the variability in their missions, funding levels, and capacity. All of them had adopted plans to guide their expenditures, sources of matching money to expand the capacity of their local funds, productive partner relationships, and appropriately detailed enabling legislation. Creating comparable foundations for your program starts with the steps described in this chapter. We focus on how you can lay the groundwork for the work ahead by learning about your community and about the resources available to your program. Your program’s groundwork gives it the ability to implement the advice and best practices provided throughout this publication. In the chapter, you will be introduced to some of the programs profiled for their exemplary approaches. Some of the examples are technology-based, others involve methods for reflecting local culture, and a few describe ways of overcoming common obstacles. As you read, try to compare your own local circumstances and seek new insights from your conservation colleagues around the country. 12

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

BEST PRACTICES FOR GROUNDWORK Know your landscape. Gather all the information you can about the geography of the area where your program will do its work. Federal, state, regional, and local entities have maps, plans, aerial photos, and other publications that can guide your conservation work. Be sure to maintain an open mind, not only about the kind of information you are looking for, but also about where to look for it. Land used for flood control, water supply, schools, and defense installations may all hold promise for protection. Since nature rarely follows jurisdictional boundaries, be sure to investigate neighboring areas so that your program can help create regional benefits. Know the people. Each source of information is also a fellow human you

should be aware of and with whom you may want to be acquainted. In the groundwork phase, your program will have the opportunity to reach out to people who can help it succeed. If you understand who is doing what, in and around your area, you will be jump-starting your efforts to create productive partnerships, secure matching funds, and find mentors. Know your community. Using public funds is a political act, but not only because elected officials must vote to approve appropriations. It is also political because taxes, property rights, land use, government jobs, and the provision of parks and recreation services are all topics of political discourse. For your program to succeed, it must reflect your community’s political character. Those who are responsible for designing policies, selecting projects, enacting laws, and managing protected properties will all do their jobs better if they are in touch with local realities. In many places in this publication, you will be encouraged to weigh public sentiment as part of an important decision. Know what success looks like. Throughout this handbook, you will find references to conservation plans. (We will fully explore the topic of plans later in this chapter.) The reason these references reappear is that your plan provides an established way of measuring program success. Properly researched, well-documented, objectively written documents that include input from the public will describe what must be done to achieve community objectives. However, in many cases these objectives are established by a fairly small group of citizens. While the leaders of your program lay the groundwork, they should try to find a way of defining success that includes broader input. Land conservation can have far-reaching social, educational, and economic effects when success is defined by the extent of benefits received by area citizens.

13

14

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Center for Whole Communities: Fostering a New Understanding of Success Conservation achievements are generally measured by the number of acres protected and the dollars invested. Throughout this handbook you will encounter many places where we cite these figures to convey the success of a certain community or program. But there is a movement within the conservation profession to make our land protection efforts more sustainable by linking our work to the well-being of all Americans. Center for Whole Communities (www.wholecommunities.org) was established to encourage more inclusive approaches to conservation, approaches that improve everyone’s lives and create connections between people and with the land. The center, located in the Mad

TOM EVERS

River valley of Vermont, leads retreats and workshops that bring together diverse leaders who have in common their work for environmental and social justice. Workshop graduates return to their communities with

fresh perspectives on conservation success. In addition, the center has developed new methods for measuring success (see Whole Measures on page 103). Cofounder Peter Forbes works directly with communities that want to deliver meaningful social change in the course of land protection. Whole Communities offers this thought-provoking definition of success: “Real success is conservation’s ability to redefine for Americans their health, their relationships, and their sense of fairness. Real success is achieved when conservationists work in partnership with other groups to engage more people in building just and vibrant communities. Real success is found in conservation’s contribution to restoring our common wealth—the natural, social, civic and economic assets held in common for the well-being of all community members.”3

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

15

CONSERVATION PLANS The foundations of many of the successful programs we studied are the plans that set forth their visions for local land protections. Some plans are focused on open space or ecologically important natural areas; others center on developed parks; an increasing number target farms and ranches. We advocate for plans because the interviews demonstrated that plans contribute to good outcomes.  A well-written, easily understood plan, develResearch, resource oped before a funding measure is on the ballot, gives confidence to skeptical voters who want to know where their tax dollars will go. The public identification, and outreach process of creating a plan can create community that are part of the planning buy-in and support for the program. Also, the research, resource identification, and outreach process provide a firm basis that are part of the planning process provide a for later policy setting in the firm basis for later policy setting in the areas of project selection, criteria, and applications. (Of areas of project selection, course, if you are reading this handbook after the criteria, and applications. approval of a measure that was not based on a plan, it is too late to counsel you about the value of  doing this work in advance. We will have advice later in this chapter about how to proceed.) Many people who have worked in conservation for a long time can attest to the number of good plans gathering dust on the shelves of public agencies. Planning must be accompanied by a broad constituency; political will; legislation to advance land protection objectives; funding to carry out the plan; and people who have the appropriate skills, authority, and time to produce results. Accordingly, despite the value of conservation planning, it is still better to have all the other ingredients and no plan than the other way around. A great plan does not guarantee success, so do not allow your program, money, and energy to be swallowed up in planning. Characteristics of a good plan. We have already described the benefits of planning and the uses of a good plan. But what distinguishes the best examples, which provide the best guidance? In part, the answer lies in your community’s conservation objectives and in the existing level of knowledge about its natural resources and citizen priorities. There are, however, some general directives that will help you judge your current document or lead the process to create a new one.  Detailed goals. Your plan should reflect your community’s values with respect

to all the resources targeted for conservation. Often, the planning process is an opportunity to fully explore those values through public forums, polling, interviews with stakeholders, and hearings.

S A N T A F E C O U N T Y, NEW MEXICO Benefits of Conservation Planning

RICHIE DIESTERHEFT

he name Santa Fe conjures up images of sweeping sagebrush vistas, brilliant sunsets, piñon-covered hillsides, strings of chile peppers, and indigenous and Hispanic traditions. All these unique characteristics still exist, alongside strip development, sprawling subdivisions, and traffic congestion. In the hope of retaining their heritage and their landscapes, residents of Santa Fe County have twice voted to tax themselves and to bond against county revenues. Between 1998 and 2000, voters approved two finance measures that gave the county authority to issue $20 million worth of bonds to purchase high-priority lands. However, the actual lands and resources had been identified only in a general way when the first funding was approved. After the first referendum, “it took two years to develop a plan to spend the money,” says Paul Olafson, director of the Open Space and Trails Division. While the plan was being prepared, real estate prices continued their breathtaking ascent. One property was purchased following community-driven lobbying of county officials to buy it in order to prevent it from becoming a gas station. Although it would have been preferable to have the plan completed before the funds were allocated, Olafson still believes planning, even later, was “the right thing to do.” For Santa Fe County, he says it was valuable because of the level of local interest in establishing the priorities. “We got a huge amount of input and buy-in from the general public. Now we have a solid base of information and support to continue moving forward with open space and trails projects.” When the plan was completed, it laid out the vision that now guides the division’s activities. “Some of our main priorities are cultural resources, riparian and river corridors, scenic vistas, and agricultural properties. Plus we have identified a countywide trail corridor system,” reports Olafson. To date, this vision has led to the acquisition of 22 properties at a cost of approximately $15 million. His message for new programs is this: “Your plan is the foundation of your program, the basis for your work.” 16

JANE BERNARD

T

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

17

 Detailed criteria. Sound science should be the basis for the criteria suggested

by the plan. The criteria must interpret the goals in a way that helps determine whether a certain property deserves protection. (In Chapter VI we delve deeply into the topic of criteria.) For example, if protecting water quality is an important goal for your program, the criteria should be based upon defensible information that predicts whether a parcel really contributes in a significant way toward that goal. In this instance, geology, hydrology, development patterns, and ecosystem types determine whether your best investment is in the headwaters, or in wetlands, or along rivers, or in retaining forest cover. In subsequent chapters on project selection and criteria, you will see how these plan characteristics influence the effectiveness of your protection efforts. When to create a conservation plan. In an ideal world, a plan to govern expendi-

tures would be completed before the money was available, even if it was not done before the funding measure. As part of the groundwork, Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping can locate and diagram the finest examples of a given resource or natural value. If GIS-based maps—with layers for parcel location and ownership—are available, the program’s leaders can quickly determine which parcels are the most appropriate for meeting the greatest number of program purposes. In this ideal scenario, the person or people responsible for transaction negotiations could begin talking with the owners of the most desirable properties before the money became available, with the goal of completing the first purchases as soon as possible after the money arrives. However, things are rarely ideal. If a plan has not yet been developed and adopted, you must work to advance the new program using whatever tools you have. Since the plan is essential both for making strategic acquisitions and for building credibility with voters, you should create a legitimate conservation road map as soon as possible. Since a thorough plan that incorporates citizen input and high-quality maps could take a great deal of time, an interim approach may be necessary if you have funding and no plan. Too many programs have been diverted for years from their pressing conservation work by a preoccupation with planning at this point in their life cycle— after funding is approved but before land acquisition begins. If you have money but no plan, do not put off saving land until the perfect planning process has been designed and implemented. When the public approves a funding measure, the voters expect to see conservation action that produces a tangible return on their investment. In some instances, there may even be commonly agreed-upon purchase targets that motivated the approval of the measure. In these instances, it may be appropriate and expedient to work on those priorities right away, especially if the threat of development is high. More often, different constituencies view different parcels and resources as the most urgent priorities.

18

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Conservation Visioning : TPL Helps Communities Create a Plan for Action AS PART OF TPL’S MISSION of “Conserving Land for People,” the organization has always sought to support local government efforts to manage growth and create public greenspaces. Conservation Visioning is the suite of tools that TPL offers to help communities determine and prioritize their objectives. Many of the groundwork elements described in this chapter are components of Conservation Visioning. TPL’s work results in implementation strategies based on unique local interests and resources. The four components of TPL’s conservation process are the following:  Constituency building. Engages stakeholders and part-

ners to create a local vision.  Greenprinting. Interactive GIS modeling that takes

community input and scientific data to identify protection priorities. (See the Litchfield Hills case study on page 36.)  Conservation finance analysis. Research and recom-

mendations for funding the implementation of the com-

JERRY AND MARCY MONKMAN

munity vision.  Action plan. Specific steps to achieve both short-term and

long-term success. In all cases, communities define their own objectives and are provided with the information they need to be successful.

If you don’t have time to plan right away. The two recommendations below address the tension between the long-term necessity of creating a publicly supported plan to guide the program and the market pressures that make delays risky. 1. Use an existing plan for guidance. You may find that plans have been pre-

pared by other agencies with goals similar to those of the new program, and that these existing plans could be used to guide immediate protection action. In Volusia County, Florida (the home of Daytona Beach), the land conservation program, Volusia Forever, uses the Volusia Conservation Corridor as its primary plan, according to Land Acquisition and Management Director Doug Weaver. The Florida Department of Environment Protection had already surveyed the most sensitive environmental features in the county and was work-

19

ing to acquire lands in this protected corridor before the county program was created. (See the case studies on Volusia County on pages 96 and 127.) Massachusetts communities working to gain voter approval of local funding often already have plans completed to comply with state requirements for grants Billerica MA protected its last farm, owned by Mr. from its LAND program (forGriggs. merly the Self Help Program). Even though existing plans may not provide the amount of detail that would be best for newly created programs, they can often suffice until more time and funding can be invested in replacements. Sometimes existing plans can be refined to meet your needs without very much work or expense. 2. Create an interim plan. Even an interim plan must feature detailed goals and

criteria to be useful. Such plans ensure that your program will acquire only properties that advance the community’s conservation objectives. Therefore, you need to fully understand the public’s objectives to develop even an interim document. If recent polling or survey results are available, those can provide a good starting point. So, too, can information gathered in public forums to advise other plans, such as the comprehensive plan. A single public workshop to gather input could allow you to test and update assumptions about goals and priorities. That input could provide a reasonable basis for an interim plan. Or you could look to well-informed stakeholders to check the goals and help create working criteria. (See the boxes on pages 20 and 46 on Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida) Simple GIS overlays can be used as part of an interim plan to show the locations of priority resources. If, for example, your community needs to protect wetlands and woodlands to accomplish its water quality goals, those two types of land cover can be mapped to answer some basic questions about where to target conservation investments. GIS mapping and modeling (see the GIS case study on page 32) can fairly quickly tell you where the greatest benefit will be produced by graphically showing the location of the resources that inspired the passage of the financing measure, It is important to verify and update these maps through on-the-ground inspections, especially if the level of detail is not particularly fine. Most local, state, and federal agencies involved in planning, environmental protection, property appraisal, and public works already have GIS maps showing the locations of significant environmental features. Your program can undertake more thorough studies later, when you create the

SUSAN LAPIDES

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

20

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida: Pulling Together a Plan Promptly IN FLORIDA, in 1999, Mayor John Delaney created the Preservation Project to guide conservation action in the Jacksonville area. In approximately 90 days, Delaney’s team of Duval County leaders, agency staff, and environmentalists developed a plan that has guided the project ever since. The team’s primary goal was to create green infrastructure in the county around Jacksonville’s sprawling perimeter. Mayor Delaney also sought to provide river and ocean access, habitat for wildlife, and acreage sufficient to meet the area’s future park and recreation needs. The quick work on the plan was possible, in part, because the

CAROL BAILEY

initiative came from an influential and popular mayor, and the language of the ballot was very flexible. The Preservation Project was further aided by capitalizing on existing conservation plans and criteria.

The creation of the Jacksonville plan and the successful series of farsighted acquisitions that followed it, with a total value of more than $300 million, show that a group of experienced science, conservation, and recreation professionals can rapidly identify the vast majority of important conservation targets, especially when that group can make use of information that is already available.

complete plan that will guide the program for the foreseeable future. At that time you will want to use new and better information to refine and develop the selection process and criteria. Better data, more complete analysis, changes in public priorities, and experience would all be captured in the final plan. THE ROLE OF MAPPING GIS mapping for both interim and long-term planning can be a great help. A base map should be your first investment. It should include, at a minimum, land cover data, existing protected land, roads, bodies of water, and land use designations. Project selection will be easier and more effective if the base map and parcel map can be combined. This combination will show the natural, cultural, or physical value of each area or specific property relative to your program’s goals and criteria, as determined by the community’s values.

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

21

GIS models, such as TPL’s patented Greenprint platform (see the case study on page 82), are a technologically advanced method of bringing science, public opinion, and a variety of pertinent data into your project identification and selection. Models are useful for visualizing conservation targets, both generally and specifically, if you have good data on which you can build. Theoretically, models can reveal miles of riverfront, acres of wetlands, suitability for trail construction, number of access points to existing public land, or which neighborhoods have a

CHRISTIAN SMITH THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

Fig.1: Park Equity Map, Los Angeles CA (detail)

shortage of parks. The City of Los Angeles and TPL used GIS modeling to analyze complex census data for the number, ages, income levels, and ethnicity of residents relative to the locations of existing greenspaces. The resulting maps showed where there were concentrations of school-age children without access to the outof-doors. The Maywood neighborhood shown in Figure 1, above, is among those that have benefited from the city’s commitment to remedying the deficiencies uncovered in the park system. Showing maps to the public is a good way to assure citizens of the integrity of your decision making. If the local political climate allows you to analyze and map lands most likely to be developed in the near future, that data can inform the criteria that will govern your program’s acquisitions. A “development-threat”

22

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

GIS: What is It and How Does It Support Conservation?

T O J ACK D ANGERMOND , president and founder of Environmental Systems

Research Institute (ESRI), mathematics, music, and art are forms of language that enable us to convey ideas. He views Geographic Information System (GIS) as the “language of geography.” With GIS technology, we can communicate what the planet looks like, how it functions, and how its inhabitants relate to it. GIS, wrote Dangermond, is “a way to organize a body of knowledge, a means of sharing knowledge and a tool for communicating meaning.”4 Armed with a new level of understanding of geography and human impacts, and a method to graphically express this knowledge with other knowledge, conservationists have a powerful and effective tool with which to build support for protection. A GIS is more than digital mapmaking. Humans have been making maps ever since people began to tell each other how to reach a destination, which places to avoid, and where opportunities lay. GIS technology links geographic information (where things are) with descriptive information (what things are like). Unlike a flat paper map, a GIS-generated map has many layers of information that allow you to see a place in many different ways. GIS makes it possible to map the relationships between people and places. “The beauty of GIS is that you can visualize patterns and connections,” explains Breece Robertson, The Trust for Public Land’s national GIS director. “A two-dimensional map can show that two sections of a trail don’t connect, but GIS can assess the impediments to making the connection, like slope or seasonal runoff or major roads. Then GIS will give you different alternatives based on information about on-the-ground features.” Although GIS technology has been in use for decades, its utility was constrained by a variety of technical factors. Many different software applications and techniques were used, which made it nearly impossible to combine information collected by different agencies, and a high level of computer knowledge was required to tackle even relatively simple tasks. Advances in computing power, speed, and accessibility have changed the situation in recent years. ESRI invested heavily in creating universal standards for the new languages and mechanisms to integrate all the different forms of data into something that could be broadly understood. Software engineers also concentrated on generating programs that could help explain

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

23

the intricacies of nature and how our own creations such as roads, cities, and pollution relate to it. The stunning outcome of their efforts is the technique of modeling: the process of storing, integrating, and analyzing large amounts of information to arrive at a prediction or solution. With a new ESRI program called Modelbuilder that simplifies data processing, local governments are increasingly able to take advantage of models to inform their land conservation efforts. Modelbuilder has also brought greater transparency to land conservation planning. As each piece of information is fed into the model, results can be viewed by planning participants. For example, a model like the one diagramed below could demonstrate risks of flooding in a certain watershed. Information would likely include projected levels of precipitation, topography, and soil type. Users could input a higher projected level of rainfall to examine flood risk, resulting quickly in a new map that shows the effects. The model contributes to better communication, increased trust, and improved collaborations because all participants can clearly see the outcomes. Just what you would expect when everyone starts speaking the

COPYRIGHT © ESRI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. USED BY PERMISSION.

same language.

24

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

analysis can be done by mapping zoning, soil types, access, utilities, and other characteristics that developers consider. (See the case study on Litchfield Hills, Connecticut, on page 26.) However, communities that are resistant to possible future regulations may also be resistant to investigations such as these out of concern that vulnerable lands might be rezoned to protect them from conversion. Even if you are able to do an assessment of tracts suitable for development, you should avoid identifying specific conservation targets at the parcel level, because that identification can contribute to rising prices and land speculation, particularly in competitive real estate markets. BEWARE OF ANALYSIS PARALYSIS Although research appears to show that communities with a strategic vision get better results, we also noted the drawbacks of overplanning. It is not necessary to gather all the information you need before you take action. In the conservation business, that kind of overemphasis on completeness is sometimes referred to as analysis paralysis. Local governments seem to be particularly susceptible to analysis paralysis when they consider future land management. Too many programs have been diverted from immediate acquisition needs by overlong discussions about the use, development, and long-term care of the properties to be purchased. Very few lands would ever be protected if every potential expense or contingency had to be considered before they could be acquired. In Chapter XI, we go further into operations and management; in this chapter, however, we examine the way those future activities are connected with preparation for acquisitions. Voters approve funding because they want to see land protected before it is lost forever. You should honor their wishes by taking action to secure the most important landscapes thoughtfully, but as quickly as possible. THINK AHEAD ABOUT FUTURE LAND MANAGEMENT In the acquisition of land for conservation, one extreme is buying whatever is available and ignoring all management issues until later. The opposite extreme is insisting on having a management policy and a plan in place before you acquire any land at all. The best programs operate somewhere in between those two ends of the spectrum. Purchases are not delayed by long debates about the specific uses of certain parcels. Acquiring important threatened tracts is like investing resources for the future. You give your community the land and the luxury of working out the best management and use scheme. This does not mean that management can be entirely ignored at the outset. You must have a vision of future use to help you select your projects and design your transactions because that vision determines what property rights you will purchase. Future use and management activities affect the partnerships and funding that you will need in order to

25

ALEX DIEKMANN

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

Gallatin County MT had its Open Lands Plan to guide its investments in conservation.

prepare for the design, development, and operations of acquired lands. For example, citizens in Gallatin County, Montana approved the Gallatin County Open Space Bond measure because they wanted to protect the most visible, family-owned, resource-rich ranches and maintain them as agricultural land. This vision had been previously articulated in the county’s Open Lands Plan. The clarity of the public’s goals made it possible for the county and its partners to move quickly in pursuing the best transaction as its first acquisitions. If they had waited until everyone agreed on exactly how the protected land should be managed and who would be involved in every aspect of managing it, the program would still be trying to finish its first deal. In summary, to make strategic purchases, you need to understand public objectives and have a sense of the likely future uses of the property you are considering. However, you do not immediately need a detailed and complete plan for future operations and management, and in fact, if you spend too much time on one, it may actually keep you from getting the land you want. In addition to planning, which is all about knowing your land resources, several other factors contribute to a solid foundation for an effective and efficient program. Our research highlighted the additional steps discussed below, which should help you learn about your relationship resources. GET TO KNOW YOUR PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS Chapter IX examines the full range of partnership types. An essential first step toward creating cooperative relationships is to figure out which government agencies, nonprofits, corporations, landowners, philanthropies, and individuals share

LITCHFIELD HILLS, CONNECTICUT A Regional Approach to Regional Challenges

any cities and counties have GIS departments staffed with capable technicians working on up-to-date computer equipment. Programs starting in communities with mapping technology and skills may have an advantage over smaller, less technically endowed programs as they strive to create credible, objective criteria. One way for smaller jurisdictions to gain this advantage is to band together. The Litchfield Hills region of Connecticut offers a collaborative model to consider that shows how partnerships can bring about results that would be impossible to achieve through isolated efforts. Litchfield Hills is composed of 27 towns, in two counties, encompassing nearly 600,000 acres of forests and farms with all the classic New England features: grazing cows, hay meadows, red barns, white churches, brilliant fall foliage, and rushing streams. It also has several towns that are among the fastest growing in the state, seeing building permit applications and subdivision requests doubling over a five-year period. Although Connecticut law requires each town to have a “plan of conservation and development,” there was no comprehensive source of information about the type of natural resources that transcend municipal boundaries. Without this information or a framework for cooperative conservation activities in the region, it was impossible to protect resources like rivers, wildlife corridors, and the best agricultural areas. The Housatonic Valley Association (HVA), a conservation organization that works throughout the 2,000-square-mile Housatonic River Valley—which includes Litchfield Hills—took the lead in 2005 in a GIS mapping effort to coordinate conservation and planning among area towns and land trusts. Kirk Sinclair, PhD, GIS manager at HVA, says that the towns needed a tool to help them determine which parcels were best for development and which ones were most critical for retaining the scenic, recreational, wildlife, and drinking-water resources valued by the communities. Most of these communities do not have a full-time planner, never mind sophisticated mapping abilities. HVA and The Trust for Public Land (TPL) responded to this need using TPL’s Greenprint GIS platform to build a regional database and model JERRY AND MARCY MONKMAN

26

JERRY AND MARCY MONKMAN

M

SHARON

Skiff Mountain

KENT

Properties in Litchfield Hills, such as Skiff Mountain, were identified and are being protected. 27

CHRISTIAN SMITH THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

that could help local planners and conservationists develop land protection scenarios. The Greenprint (which uses ESRI ArcGIS software and was designed by Brenda Faber of Fore Site Consulting, Inc.) provides a tool for analyzing data and integrating local conservation goals in order to prioritize parcels for protection, or development. Together, HVA and TPL collected and constructed data from every possible source. People closest to the resources provided essential information about their hopes for conservation and concerns for their communities. When all of the input was processed, the Litchfield Greenprint revealed that nearly 200,000 acres of ecologically and scenically valuable land remained unprotected, including 80 percent of all the riparian corridors and 85 percent of the farmland. “We needed to be able to rank the likelihood of development of a specific parcel so that we could tell which one demands our attention, so we decided to create a threat model,” recalls Sinclair. This model relies on local knowledge of predictors of development potential. For example, Sinclair’s advisers recommended that all undeveloped parcels over 50 acres be mapped, together with attributes that make land suitable for building such as reasonable slopes and access to water and roads. With the Greenprint and threat models available to all the towns in Litchfield Hills, the partners are now able to objectively establish local conservation priorities that will lead to regional resource protection. All the partners in this GIS project anticipate that Litchfield Hills’ small communities will be empowered to make better decisions and better conservation investments because they will be based on complete, accessible data.

28

the interests of your program. No matter where you live or what resources your program aims to conserve, there are always individuals and institutions that can be considered stakeholders or partners. Partners are the groups or people who will help implement your program. Because of their importance to your program’s success, we encourage you to view them as co-leaders. Stakeholders are the entities and individuals who have an interest in the outcome of the program’s efforts. This group will have a substantially larger membership, although there will likely be overlap with your partners. Partners working together can get a new program on During the groundwork phase, the right course and through rough times. take the time to list all of them, whether they supported the funding measure or not. Use questions such as these to help you determine who should be on your lists: Who and what does the program need for successful implementation? For example, are there sources of matching money that are essential? Or will you need assistance with acquisitions? Or perhaps the program has to find an appropriate entity to manage land?

 Partners:

 Stakeholders: Who will be affected by the program’s work?

What interest groups are critical to the program’s political support? Is there information out there that could help your program succeed and who has it?

The second step is to initiate contact with everyone on your list as soon as possible. In some instances, group meetings with stakeholders may be all the outreach you need. For example, your program may want to have neighborhood meetings. Make sure that invitations are extended to all stakeholder organizations and agencies that may have an interest in your program. In other cases, particularly with potential partners, it may be wiser to cultivate relationships through one-on-one meetings with individuals and organizations that could best assist your program. To prepare for the first meetings with partners, be sure to know your purpose in advance. Why are you reaching out to that person? What do you want him or her to do? Do you need buy-in, information, or advice at this stage? Be sure to learn

© 2009 JUPITERIMAGES CORPORATION

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

29

as much as you can about the potential partner before your meeting so you can tailor your approach and requests. The purpose of these meetings will depend on the culture of your community. In some places, it is imperative to get partners and stakeholders involved at every stage of developing the conservation plan and program policies, even including the best approach to planning. Other programs can develop their strategies and design the program’s structure without consulting the public at all. In a more trusting, less participatory environment (such as Clarkstown, New York, which is profiled on page 38), the main function of meetings may be simply to keep the stakeholders informed and give them an opportunity to contribute feedback before the plan and policies are completed. However, we recommend that you engage your true partners, whom you judge to be essential to the success of your program, throughout the development of the program. STUDY YOUR FUNDING OPTIONS There is never enough money to conserve and manage all the resources that communities cherish. Therefore, in addition to seeking partners, you have to investigate every possible source of funding. Someone should gather background information on the uses of each possible source, how and when monies are allocated, and what types of projects have received awards in the past. The information you get from this research will be crucial as you consider project selection, criteria, and transaction design. As you will see in the chapters covering these topics, the pursuit of matching funds influences many aspects of the acquisition program. If you are familiar with potential sources of matching funds, that will help you create policies and prepare your program to begin project selection and purchases. Leveraging local dollars with state, federal, and private funds does more than extend the reach of your program; it helps build public support by showing creativity and collaboration. We will cover this topic in more depth in Chapter VII. LANDOWNER OUTREACH Local landowners may be a program’s most important partners and sources of leverage. Your success depends largely on your program’s credibility with landowners and its responsiveness to their desires and needs. That is why an important part of your groundwork should be cultivating relationships with people who own properties that are likely to be protection priorities. Chapter V explores the challenging, and sometimes charged, subjects of which properties are priorities, when priorities will be decided, and who should take part in the decisions. When your program is getting started, landowners’ opinions should be part of your policy development. In some communities, landowners are concerned about a new program, even if they are philosophically inclined toward conservation.

30

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Some of them may have been exposed to negative propaganda connected with a ballot measure. Others may be afraid that increased government ownership in the area will increase taxes. Some may be concerned that  if their land is identified as environmentally sensitive, their property values will go down and their Landowners’ opinions options for development will be limited. Or you may should be part of your encounter individuals who have had bad experiences with local government agencies in the past. Whatpolicy development. ever a landowner’s concerns may be, your program must listen and try to respond. This type of honest  outreach will be well received. It can also help you start moving toward the purchase of key properties.

In some areas, conservation-funding measures are blessed with the support of area real estate brokers who recognize the importance of conservation in maintaining the local quality of life. In other areas, real estate professionals oppose such funding measures. Opposition is often based on concerns about the funding method or fear that conservation actions might reduce the amount of acreage available for development. If real estate professionals do not support your plans, no matter why, part of your work after the measure has been passed will be to resolve differences. When you start designing your program, it is vital to work with real estate professionals, because they often wield considerable political and financial influence. They will also participate in the program as citizens, sellers’ representatives, and potential funders. Make it a priority to figure out how to work with them. Some agents and brokers see potential business in conservation funding. The program does provide a new market for certain special parcels. And, after all, once funding is available, the program will be in the business of buying real estate. Real estate professionals who support the program’s goals can be important sources of information about properties. The ones who routinely handle vacant Real estate professionals are essential partners.

PHIL SCHERMEISTER

BUILD RAPPORT WITH REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

31

land and understand the value of protection can be excellent program advisers. Their knowledge of the land market and local real estate procedures makes them essential partners. A representative from the program should get on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board of Realtors to talk about coming steps and to solicit their input. When you find sympathetic and knowledgeable real estate agents, get their help in developing the key policies described in this publication. Try to get them to assist you as advisers in some capacity. LEGAL DOCUMENTS State and local laws determine what documents you need to establish your program and set the stage for its implementation. If your program is already up and running, you can skip this section and proceed to the next chapter. The method that brought the measure to the voters may also govern the program’s legal needs or restrictions. Broadly speaking, the key legal documents that get a new program from concept to first transaction are these:      

Legislation to put the matter on the ballot Ballot language Legislation to create the program after funding is approved Bylaws of the advisory committee Resolution adopting the bylaws and other aspects of program policy Authority for a government agency to hold applicable interests in land

There is a trend toward greater specificity about the proposed program, both in the legislation that sends the funding measure to the voters and in the ballot language itself. For more information about that process, see The Conservation Finance Handbook.5 ACTION THAT FOLLOWS APPROVAL OF FUNDING After the voters approve the measure, the legislative body of the jurisdiction (county, township, city, and so on) must pass legislation to create the agency or program that will spend the funds and carry out the voters’ wishes. In some places, this legislation will be an ordinance; in others, a resolution. Your municipal or county attorney will know the appropriate mechanism for your area. Even in situations where an existing funding source has been redirected to pay for a new conservation program, you will usually need a piece of legislation of this kind. Because this legislation sets forth many of the essentials that shape the program, it is very important to write it thoughtfully. High-quality attorneys, even some who specialize in municipal law, may not be well informed about what goes into a good conservation acquisition program.

W A K E C O U N T Y, NORTH CAROLINA Creating a Unified Effort Among Varied Participants

W

SHAWN BRADSHAW

ake County has many selling points. For one thing, it is the home of The Research Triangle Park, a globally prominent center for high-tech research, which hires skilled, educated workers. The area’s jobs and institutions of higher learning, along with its arts, culture, history, and recreation, have earned Wake County a reputation as one of the best places to live, work, and raise a family. Atlantic beaches and the Blue Ridge Mountains are both within a two hour drive. This quality of life caused a doubling of the county’s population between 1980 and 2000. The last census showed approximately 750,000 residents in this 550,000acre area. But 1,800 new residents arrive each month, and 27 acres per day are converted from natural landscape to a human-built environment as a result of these arrivals. This rapid growth caused local leaders to take action to protect land for recreation, parks, open space, and water quality. Several key parcels were acquired in 1999, and a countywide finance measure went to the voters in 2000. They approved the $15-million bond to purchase high-priority lands by a 77 percent margin. To make sure that all of Wake County’s 12 municipalities would be ready and able to participate in conservation, the county funded local plans for all of them. According to David Carter, former director of Parks, Recreation and Open Space, all the plans share attributes that were collectively agreed on at the start of the process. Carter says that allowing each community to determine its priorities within a larger framework provided by the county was essential to the long-term effectiveness of the program.

32

33

DARCY KIEFEL

Getting consensus and participation was a diplomatic feat, given the variety of economic, geographic, and sociological differences that could have divided the towns in Wake County. But Carter knew that full engagement was crucial to the effectiveness of the county’s program. If even one town or city had remained on the sidelines, the integrity of the system of protected lands would have been compromised. These local plans were assembled into the Wake County Consolidated Open Space Plan. Partners such as state and federal agencies, nonprofits, and other entities with knowledge of area resources or funds to contribute took part in shaping the final version. The plan recommends the protection of approximately 165,000 acres—nearly one-third of the land in the county—centered around critical stream corridors that affect area drinking-water quantity and quality. Out of that total, 30,000 acres were targeted for purchase and public ownership. Because Carter was convinced that ongoing broad municipal collaboration is a key to long-term success, he met quarterly with a group of representatives from the cities and towns to exchange updates and keep communication flowing in both directions. To achieve the county’s goal of leveraging every county dollar with a dollar from another source, the program is working to use sources as varied as the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, and municipal matches for high-priority projects. Partners have been essential to achieving the matching-fund goals because they assist with grant writing and with the negotiation of complex real estate transactions. As of 2008, over 3,800 acres with a value of more than $66 million had been acquired at a cost of $40 million to Wake County. The remaining $26 million has been contributed by other funders and through bargain sales negotiated by partner organizations. To keep up the momentum, the popular program went back to taxpayers in November 2004 to ask for $26 million and again in November 2007 to request $50 million in additional funding. All the groundwork paid off. Both times more than 70 percent of the voters said yes.

34

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

WHAT TO INCLUDE IN THE LEGISLATION You should judiciously include the details of the program in the legislation. So as to create good, defensible law, avoid establishing specific program procedures at this level of government. State law will demand certain basics and the intent of the measure will call for others. A citizens advisory committee is often included to respond to the voters’ desires. If such a committee has been promised to the voters, the steps to create it will be part of the legislation for implementing the program. However, many activities that will come later, such as developing the project selection processes, should be left for other documents, which can be produced by the committee and the staff. It is important to remember that the program needs the flexibility to develop and change the way it works as it evolves, so the details of the program’s day-to-day activities should not be codified in difficult-to-amend legal documents. Some communities may decide to create the implementation legislation before the ballot measure so voters can see how the program will be implemented if the funding is approved. In this case, the legislative body may approve the legislation  before the election so that it goes into effect as soon as the voters approve the Some communities may measure. decide to create the implementation The other way to proceed is to create the implementing legislation after the legislation before the ballot measure voters have approved the funding. Sometimes this task is postponed until after the so voters can see how election because staff or elected officials the program will be implemented if are not sure the voters will approve the measure and do not want to waste time. the funding is approved. In other communities, the delay is due to  research into program design having not been completed. People who draft this key legislation should read this handbook carefully to prepare, no matter when they tackle the actual writing. We hope that by providing best practices for the program’s procedures, we can help you perform this task fairly quickly, so that acquisitions can begin soon after the voters approve the funding. There is no norm for the amount of detail about program operations that goes into in the legislation. They vary as much as the ballot language does. State and local law and the charter of the jurisdiction all affect the form and function of the legislation.

L AY I N G T H E G R O U N D W O R K F O R P R O T E C T I N G L A N D

35

INCLUDING MANAGEMENT FUNDING

DARCY KIEFEL

In the implementing legislation, if possible, establish a stewardship fund to pay for ongoing care of the acquired lands. Lack of foresight and financial planning for management costs is proving to be a serious problem in many communities. While the program is being formed, you should make every effort to create a mechanism that will pay for the long-term costs of protection. Interviewees suggested a range of 7 to 12 percent of annual funding as a realistic amount (depending on the development and management activities that will be covered by the money that is allocated) to fund the operations and management of lands or interests in land, including the monitoring and enforcement of conservation easements. (See Chapter XI for more on easement stewardship.) Keep in mind that properties intended for intense public use or lands that require restoration to fulfill their public purpose will need more maintenance funding than pristine natural areas with limited public access. It would be ideal if the measure allowed these monies to be reserved from the newly dedicated source of revenue. General obligation bonds, however, are limited to capital expenditures. Therefore, if this type of bond is financing your program, other sources will be required. In all events, the monies should be set aside annually as an endowment, if possible. The legislation should establish that this endowment will roll over from year to year and will be an inviolable savings account to steward conserved properties.

Purchasing land is only a step in the right direction. Securing funds for management and development is crucial and easiest to do while public interest in expanding park and open space acreage is still high.

C H APTER

III

SCOTT T. SMITH

Advisory Committees

MUCH OF THE DRAMA and tension between accountability and flexibility is played out on the advisory committee stage. Voters expect—and in many cases have been promised in the course of the election or in the ballot language—some form of citizen oversight of the new program. The desire for a citizens advisory committee may arise from a general distrust of government, and the committee is viewed as an additional check and balance. However, desire for a committee may simply reflect a local culture of public participation, rather than concerns about the reliability of local government. As you will see in our case studies, land conservation advocates around the country have dealt with a wide range of voter concerns about government trustworthiness and the best investment of public monies. Many funding advocates tackle sensitive issues—such as the role of the advisory committee—before the vote on the funding measure to increase voter confidence. This chapter examines some of the pros and cons of various advisory committee roles, makes suggestions about appointing a committee, and provides recommendations to help committees advance conservation. Many names are used for these citizens groups, such 36

37

as Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, Open Lands Board, or Bond Oversight Council. In this handbook, we will simply refer to them as committees. When we mention a committee, we will mean a group of citizens involved in some way in the implementation of a land acqui- Serving on an advisory committee is serious work, not a social engagement. sition program. TPL’s Conservation Finance experts have learned from their experience with more than 400 measures that land acquisition measures are more successful at the ballot box when they promise that a committee will be involved in the design, implementation, and oversight of the program. Also, our interviews indicate that nearly all programs have some mechanism for oversight by a body that is separate from both staff and elected officials. However, these committees seem to vary greatly in their usefulness, and in their responsibilities. Some communities with successful land acquisition procedures have no special committees at all. Our interviews showed that, despite the benefits of committee involvement, in some cases, a committee may actually make land conservation unnecessarily challenging usually by demanding more accountability. As we discussed in chapter 1, a community’s leaders and other people who support the program (including the committee) must be flexible and fair to function in the real estate market or key properties may be lost forever. Committees and programs that work according to our best practices for committees are more likely to get the conservation results expected by the voters most quickly, at the lowest possible cost, and with the greatest possible public benefit. Finally, committees are not a substitute for the jurisdiction’s elected officials. Final approval and ultimate authority for the expenditure of public funds is in the hands of these leaders. Final accountability for the program’s success is therefore their responsibility. THE OVERARCHING RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMITTEES The primary job of each committee is to facilitate the success of the conservation program. This may seem to go without saying, yet committees that did not share this objective have been known to damage the programs for which they are responsible. No matter what assignments are given to the committee, either through the language of the ballot or by the elected officials, its key responsibility is to

© 2009 JUPITERIMAGES CORPORATION

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

CLARKSTOWN, NEW YORK Not Every Program Needs a Permanent Committee

CLARK JONES

ermanent citizens committees that help their local programs implement new funding sources and oversee project selection are certainly popular, but are they always necessary? Former Town Supervisor Charles Holbrooke of Clarkstown, New York, doesn’t think so. After the town’s 2000 referendum authorizing the local government to sell up to $22 million in bonds to acquire open space, a committee was formed to recommend lands for consideration, but that was its only job. “Members of the Open Space Advisory Committee [OSAC] gleaned information from our civic associations that represent each ‘hamlet’ in Clarkstown,” Holbrooke explains. “After they reviewed the inventory of land, OSAC suggested a list of properties. Most of the properties feature some combination of wetlands and environmental sensitivity, are highly visible, threatened by development, and/or are adjacent to existing public land.” These parcels were catalogued in a booklet that included maps. Clarkstown, which has about 82,000 residents, used the OSAC recommendations as a screening tool when projects were brought forward. Holbrooke fielded inquiries himself, and his first step was to “check the book to see if it is recommended.” In addition to consulting the book, Holbrooke relied on people in the planning department to advise him, especially when a property that was proposed for purchase had not yet been identified. A preexisting planning commission reviewed Holbrooke’s purchase recommendations and passed them on to the Board of Selectmen. Planners were part of Holbrooke’s de facto staff because he could confer with them about issues such as the development potential of tracts that were proposed for acquisition as open space. He reasoned that staff members who were involved in planning were intimately acquainted with local lands and could assess the importance of acquiring them. Just the same, Holbrooke was glad that some of the town’s engaged citizens were also involved in the initial selection because he believed that “the committee encompassed the whole town and that generated broad-based support.”

38

CLARK JONES

P

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

39

facilitate the achievement of the objectives embodied in voter or legislative approval of the funding measure. Each member must contribute in a meaningful way to the protection of the community’s irreplaceable resources for the benefit of future generations. This means every participant must be willing to work hard, giving generously of his or her time and energy. However, some people who make the appointments or serve on the committees may not see the success of the program as the primary goal. In some places, conservation is a controversial issue, and the committee reflects an ongoing public debate about it. The committee is not the place for arguments of this kind, because voters or elected officials have already approved the program. If the community wants to discuss this issue further, it must do so outside the committee, in another forum. We did not choose communities that had opponents of conservation on their programs’ advisory committees, to serve either as case studies or for best practices examples, because they did not meet our standards for good programs—effectiveness, efficiency, and popularity. We did examine programs to try to find out why they were not doing as well as one might expect, given the availability of money, the value of resources, and the pressures from growth. We will discuss the most common causes of mediocrity or failure in the section titled “What to Avoid.” PRIMARY RECOMMENDED COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS In addition to a committee’s primary work, which is to help the program succeed, many other functions can be assigned to it. Eight general responsibilities are commonly and properly assigned to committees with good results: 

 

  

Advise program staff and elected officials on the creation of the essential policies and procedures that will shape the capacity, conduct, and culture of the program. Develop the criteria that will be the cornerstone of the program. Study and select high-priority areas and resources (see Chapters V and VI for more on this subject) for consideration by agency staff or elected officials. These priorities should be incorporated into a conservation plan. Provide an opportunity for public engagement by collecting information and direction from citizens about properties, policies, and problems. Participate in the process by which acquisition projects are selected. Watch program implementation and spending to keep track of the use of public money and the program’s adherence to the purposes of the funding measure. This practice will increase public confidence and faith in the program and its expenditures.

40





T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Act as visible, prominent proponents of the program. Committee activities in this area may include speaking engagements, pro bono professional services, letters to the editor, and so on. In these ways, the committee can act as ambassadors in the community. Serve as liaisons between program staff and elected officials in communities where the culture calls for such a link.

© 2009 JUPITERIMAGES CORPORATION

These responsibilities are described in greater depth in the best practices section of this chapter on the next page. Please note that we have not listed real estate negotiation among the responsibilities of the committee. Although small programs with little staff sometimes wish committee members would work on the acquisition of high-priority parcels, we strongly discourage this practice and describe some alternatives in the best practices section. Several considerations will influence your community’s decision about which tasks your program’s committee might perform. You will want to consider questions such as these:         

Has a conservation plan been completed to guide the program or will one need to be prepared? How specific is the ballot language or implementing ordinance? How much staffing is available? Are there already committees whose interests may overlap those of your committee? How much funding is involved? What is the purpose of the committee? What is the level of trust in government? How much public involvement do the people in the area expect? Are there legal requirements, established by state or other law, that govern the roles of the committee?

Answers to these questions will help you evaluate what the program needs now and in the future. Some of the fundamental functions of your committee may have been determined in the course of the campaign, but others can be established in the early stages of the program, based on your program’s needs.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

BEST PRACTICES FOR COMMITTEES These recommendations will help you establish a committee that provides the most value and help each member participate in implementation to the best of his or her abilities. Frequently, the committee’s first assignment is to design the procedures that will constitute the core of the program. Following these best practices will be very useful during policy development and can help prevent the potentially damaging situations described below.  Act in an advisory capacity. The best job for a committee is generally

advising elected officials, staff, and supporters in the areas of policy creation and program development. As advisers, the committee members work to make sure that the activities of the program match its purposes (hopefully as shown in a conservation plan) and the voters’ expectations. Usually, in its advisory capacity, the committee establishes project selection procedures, criteria, and other processes related to the acquisition of property interests.  Support the mission of the program. Struggles among factions in the

elected body, in the committee, and sometimes within the staff appear to be common in programs that do not work well. Most of these problems could be avoided if those committees understood that their role is to guarantee the success of the program. If the voters or the elected officials have approved the measure, the program should have leaders who can make it work.  Participate in project selection. A committee should have a role in

identifying high-priority areas or resources and, later on, should participate in project selection in some way. When a committee takes part in these processes, it limits the appearance of cronyism or political foul play in the process of spending public money. This is a logical extension of the committee’s initial advisory responsibility and its leadership in bringing public input into the program. Although a committee does not have the power to commit government to act (only the elected body does), its advisory role should be respected. It should be unlikely that a project not approved by the committee would be approved and funded by elected officials or that a deal approved by the committee would be rejected at the legislative level.  Delegate transaction design and negotiation. It is essential that all

negotiations and all transaction design be the responsibility of staff, consultants, partners, or qualified pro bono advisers. If the transactions are managed by qualified people who are not associated with the

41

42

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

committee, you avoid the possibility, or even the appearance, of conflict of interest.  Select qualified candidates. Each member of your committee should have

something specific to offer the program. The jobs assigned to the committee should tell you what qualifications to seek. For example, a program focused on protecting working forests might need to recruit people who understand timber management and who have connections with owners of large forested properties. Another community might see the committee as primarily a group whose purpose is oversight or visibility. This kind of committee might need prominent businesspeople and community leaders. (See the section on appointments, below, for a more complete discussion of this topic.) Probably the most important characteristic of a good committee candidate is a willingness to work on behalf of the program and the public. A job such as this requires energy, enthusiasm, patience, and persistence. Figureheads don’t get the work done! Whether or not you believe that politics may influence a new land-protection program, a concern about that possibility was mentioned many times in our interviews. If your community has such concerns (and there are some startling examples of this problem in conservation history), depoliticizing a new program may need to be a central objective for its founders. The procedures for committee applications, nominations, and appointments must be developed in such a way that they are sheltered from political influence. Specific methods are offered in the section on appointments below. In all cases, the process should be open for applications from interested individuals.

 Depoliticize the nomination process.

 Avoid term limits. To avoid total turnover of your committee members,

start their terms at different times. In general, we do not recommend term limits, because continuity is desirable, and you need to retain “institutional memory.” People involved in appointments or reappointments should always try to keep qualified and useful members, yet be ruthless in “retiring” members who are not serving capably. PROVIDING FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT In some communities, voters want the committee to take a watchdog role and may mandate this responsibility in the measure. This function can give the public greater confidence in the program. We do not recommend it for every program, but in certain situations it can be useful. If your committee arranges outside audits, for example, these can show accountability in a reliable and commonly accepted way. Audits cost money, of course. Most communities find that their need

S A N J U A N C O U N T Y, WASHINGTON Some Committees Run the Show

43

KURT THORSON/SAN JUAN PRESERVATION TRUST

I

f you live in San Juan County, Washington, you live on an island. Some islands are large, like San Juan, and can be reached by car ferry. Others are smaller and sparsely populated; you need a private boat or plane to get to them. Some islands are little more than large rocks. However, if one of these islands is big enough to have a house on it, it is sought after and increasingly expensive real estate. San Juan County is one of only thirteen local governments in the country that have successfully instituted a real estate transfer tax to protect land, according to the LandVote database.6 Approved by voters in 1990 and renewed in 1999 by a 73 percent majority, the 1 percent tax has funded the San Juan County Land Bank’s purchase of 2,896 acres in fee and 1,878 acres under conservation easement on eight islands, including all of the four that have ferry service. The geography and funding of this county are not the only unusual things about it. The Land Bank advisory committee’s relationship to the county’s elected officials is also interesting. The initiative’s designers wanted to “depoliticize the process at the county level,” says Dennis Shaffer, former executive director of the Land Bank. They did that by creating a seven-member volunteer committee, known as the Board of Land Bank Commissioners, which has considerable autonomy and authority. In Shaffer’s experience, he says, the system “prevents micromanagement and is part of why the program works so well.” The Board of Land Bank Commissioners is much more than an advisory committee. It oversees staffing decisions and makes all the essential project decisions. Although the Board of County Commissioners must approve all projects, the law makes it impossible for that body to reject a specific transaction. Projects that have been approved by the Land Bank commissioners are all included in a complete budget package for the program that is sent to the county commissioners once a year. That budget has everything in it from salaries to rent and land purchases. The elected officials can choose to approve the entire package or reject it. “The County Commission has no line-item veto,” says Shaffer. “They would have to send back the whole budget to reject a project. In 14 years, the Land Bank has never had a rejection.”

44

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

for oversight can simply be met by a committee that pays attention to how well the conservation purchases are advancing protection goals, staying within the budget, and producing public benefit. In addition, the committee’s watchdog function can include making sure that the program’s principles are being respected and followed. These roles were central to the work of Miami-Dade County’s Citizen Oversight Committee, which is described in the case study on page 54. WHAT TO AVOID

© 2009 JUPITERIMAGES CORPORATION

To understand the best practices recommended earlier in this chapter, you need to understand the most common problems that keep acquisitions from succeeding. These problems involve organizational behavior that can make programs unappealing to landowners, partners, or funders. Either directly or indirectly, these problems create higher land acquisition costs and lost purchase opportunities. They are detailed here to help you recognize pitfalls before your program encounters them. If you guard against these kinds of counterproductive organizational behavior, it will help your program establish policies that encourage effective comFollowing this book’s best practices can help keep your program on track. mittee operations and money-saving practices.  Political manipulation of expenditures. Unfortunately, some elected officials

push for or work against transactions because of factors unrelated to the conservation value. As the final authorizing entity, the local legislative body can make decisions as it sees fit, and there are serious implications for the program if this power is abused. Some funding measures, such as Washington’s San Juan County Land Bank, have incorporated limitations on the authority of elected officials. However, this is a fairly rare practice, limited mostly to

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

45

initiatives, because elected officials are not likely to include such limitations on their authority in a referendum. For this reason, an organized and visible process of project selection and approval, which incorporates meaningful participation by a committee dedicated to the public benefit, is an important safeguard. Once this process has been established and publicized, it is more difficult to use the program for political purposes or to deny funding for high-priority properties.  Expenditures unrelated to the purposes of the funding source. Local govern-

ments have many pressing needs and many constituencies pressing for funding. A large source of money, with no legal restrictions on its use, can be a tempting target. It is critical that the program only invest in projects that fulfill the intended conservation purposes, which were spelled out in the referendum or legislation, no matter how worthy other causes may be. For example, if voters approved monies for the acquisition of land, these monies must not be used to pay salaries for work in existing parks. A committee can keep attention focused on the intent of the measure, perform audits to make sure money is being spent for the right purposes, and, if there is no other way to prevent the diversion of funds, publicize the problem.  Loss of confidentiality of landowners’ private financial data. Real estate deals

involve many sensitive issues that should not be discussed in public unless such disclosures are legally required. The public may need to know about certain aspects of an acquisition so that they can decide whether it serves community interests, but personal information about ownership, the circumstances surrounding the sale, and the details of the seller’s finances should always be kept confidential. There is no public benefit in publicizing this kind of information. That is one reason why program activities must be designed to shelter landowners, either through the use of executive sessions to discuss sensitive information or, if such sessions are not legally allowed, through the structure of the project selection process. The committee should ensure that information about the transaction, such as appraisal numbers, is not made public until it is certain that the property will definitely be acquired. This topic is explored more fully in Chapter V.  Group negotiation of transactions. A one-on-one relationship between the

program’s representative (whether a staff member, consultant, partner, or agent) and the landowner is vital to productive purchase negotiations. The person who represents the program must understand what is necessary for the transaction to be carried out, and must also understand his or her level of authority in the negotiations. No matter who is charged with conducting purchase negotiations on behalf of the program, that person should be the only one who discusses terms with the landowner. All the players connected to the program must convey a unified message to him or her. Of equal importance is the

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA The Preservation Project

acksonville’s Preservation Project offers a good example of how two separate committees, of different kinds, can have essential functions that make all the volunteer advisers as useful as possible. Community business leaders, wellknown citizens, and political VIPs were on the advisory committee, where they had two tasks: build credibility and trust among the residents of the area, and advise elected officials on the desirability of parcels that were being considered for acquisition. A separate technical committee, made up of agency representatives, land managers, and professionals with technical knowledge in the field, performed the initial project review and selection. Recommendations from the technical committee were forwarded to the advisory committee for final review before they were presented to the City Council for approval. MICHAEL WRAY

CAROL BAILEY

J

46

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

47

committee’s unanimous support of the proposed terms. The landowner or the public must not be allowed to participate in committee meetings where there will be debate about the structure or terms of a transaction.  Reneging on agreements. This may seem obvious, but our past experience

shows that it needs to be said. Commitments to landowners, partners, funders, or consultants must be honored; otherwise, the credibility and viability of your  program will be compromised. At the very At the very start of start of designing program policies, you need to decide when commitments can be made in designing the program the course of an acquisition or another possible investment, and who can make them. If policies, you need to you make agreements conditioned on some decide when commitments action, you should always spell out when that action will take place and who is responsible can be made. for it. If the program makes certain people  responsible for the decisions, the leaders must be prepared to accept the agreements made by the people who did the work.  Inability to share leadership or recognition. Human nature seems to steer us

into turf battles, claims of dominance, and a hunger for credit. If participants in the program have such urges, committee responsibilities and program leadership demand that the urges be overcome for the ultimate public benefit and for the best conservation results. People uncomfortable with this focus on the common good should not try to serve in a committee or on the staff because they will only create conflict. The people who really get the job done look for the best solutions without paying attention to who is in charge or which entity is the most visible. This attitude must be encouraged, both in the committee and in the program staff.  Anticonservation representatives on a committee. Sadly, even if voters

approve a measure, elected officials may not support it. Even if there is political support for the program today, different perspectives could prevail in the future. The process of selecting committee members must shelter the program from this kind of shift in attitude among elected officials and staff. The committee must be composed of program advocates as they represent a safeguard against forces that could interfere with the conservation mission approved by the voters. See the section on appointments on the next page for ideas about how to avoid having the committee turn against the program.

48

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

APPOINTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

JERRY AND MARCY MONKMAN

Several of the best practices we described earlier are carried out through the selection and appointment of committee members. The credibility of the program, its ability to function, and its ability to meet conservation goals all depend on the quality of the committee members. Therefore, it is worth spending time and thought at the beginning to design an appointment procedure that will meet both the immediate and the long-term needs of the program. First, write a job description that details the skills needed, the job to be done, the roles of the committee, and a list of stakeholders who should be represented. The best practices in this chapter stress the importance of qualified committee members who are interested in the success of the program and are willing to serve the entire community. To get people such as these onto an advisory committee, you often need to disconnect politics from appointments. If appointments are politically motivated, the committee members may believe they are supposed to represent their own political districts rather than the community at large. Because communities often do not understand the problems this can cause, most of them allow each elected official to name one or more members to the committee. Local or state law may govern the process of appointing committee members or predetermine some characteristics of the committee structure. In Massachusetts, for example, the Community Preservation Act (CPA) that gives towns the authority to pass property taxes for protection of open space, historic resources, and affordable housing has specific requirements. The CPA legislation stipulates that

Massachusetts’ Community Preservation Act has been an important source of funding for communities like Pepperell which used it to acquire the 157–acre Pell Farm, with TPL’s help, to complete a 20–mile loop trail and nearly 400 contiguous acres of protected open space.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

49

a Community Preservation Committee must be formed to administer the local program and make recommendations on how funds will be spent.7 Under CPA regulations, this committee must have between five and nine members, including a representative from the existing Parks/Recreation Commission, Conservation Commission, Historic Commission, Planning Board, and Housing Authority. These are all citizen boards whose existence is required by the state of Massachusetts. Other seats on the committee can be held by at-large members selected from within the community. If the law allows flexibility in the appointment process and in committee membership, you should use one or both of the two alternative approaches we recommend below instead of permitting appointments solely by the elected officials. These will help you avoid some of the biggest challenges associated with committee selection. 1. Delegate the appointments. Elected officials value their right to make

appointments to committees that help dispense public funds. This means that the positions can become politically charged, especially if the process is not one that allows people to apply for membership. Your committee and your program will be more credible if you can remove the appointment process partly or completely from the political environment. In the course of our research, we found several programs that had delegated the nominations or depoliticized the appointments. In these cases, groups other than the elected body chose, or at least nominated, the members of the committee. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, for example, after the TOPS sales tax was approved in 1997, the existing parks board was given authority to name members to the new Trails, Open Space and Parks (TOPS) Committee. The measure language stipulates that representatives from specific stakeholder groups must fill several of the committee positions. (See the case study on page 52.) In Ipswich, Massachusetts, the town manager chooses representatives for the Open Space Committee. A less dramatic departure from the usual political appointment procedure is to develop a list of nominees from which the elected officials must choose their appointees. If culture, law, or personalities in your community make it necessary for the elected body to approve of or appoint committee members, limit that body’s options to a slate of candidates recommended by a nonelected entity, such as a nominating committee or agency staff. As recommended in the best practices section of this chapter, this process should begin with a well-publicized call for applications and nominations. (See how Miami-Dade County handled the establishment of its oversight committee in the case study on page 54.)

S A N T A F E C O U N T Y, NEW MEXICO One Appointment Model

T

DON USNER

he County Open Lands and Trails Planning and Advisory Committee [COLTPAC] guides land protection work in Santa Fe County New Mexico. Members are selected by a process that ensures members “care about open space and community” rather than just controlling the purse strings, according to Alina Bokde, a former Santa Fe County Planning Department employee who was involved in designing the appointment procedure. “The people guiding the program are really important” she observes. In 1998, the first version of the committee was formed to guide the creation of the county’s Open Lands and Trails Plan. After the plan was completed, the committee was reorganized as a permanent oversight body to advise the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on long-term planning, property acquisition, land management and fiscal oversight.. To locate candidates and select the members, the county initiated an open process that invited all interested individuals to apply for positions on COLTPAC. Announcements were posted in area publications, information was sent to groups with overlapping missions, and to people who were considered ideal participants. Each applicant had to submit a letter of interest and a resume. The county planning staff collected and catalogued the applications. This process produced many high-quality candidates according to Bokde and has been used ever since, although it is now administered by Open Space and Trails Division which was created to manage the program. Applications are divided into three regions, based on geography and population, rather than on county commission districts. In this way COLTPAC is assured of good geographic representation rather than political representation. Staff members recommend a slate of candidates that reflects the broad diversity of stakeholder interests including trails, business, environment, and agriculture. For each region, the staff offers three or more recommendations so that the county commissioners have choices for each available seat on COLTPAC. The entire county commission votes on each new member of the COLTPAC, no matter where the applicant lives. This practice sends the message that the committee is responsible to the whole county, rather than to one commission district. The process brings together a cooperative group of thoughtful, hardworking, and committed participants to lead the program. 50

51

CHRISTINE GEIGER

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Salt marsh in Ipswich, MA

2. Separate location from qualification. Another way to separate appointments

from local politics is to apportion membership using a formula not connected to political districts. This strategy can be used in place of the one described above, or in combination. It replaces the method in which each elected official member appoints committee representatives from his or her district. As described in the case study on the preceding page, Santa Fe, New Mexico, is an example of a community that stresses the responsibility each appointee has to the entire citizenry by separating geography from the nomination. To secure advisers who represent the community’s best interests and the future of the program, rather than a specific geographic area, prospective members are chosen for their affiliations or skills rather than their addresses. If a program needs committee members with specific expertise, for instance, in land management, water resources, or recreational programs, it can target individuals with that knowledge to create a well-rounded group of advisers. OUTREACH TO POTENTIAL CANDIDATES The eligibility guidelines for committee membership should make it clear that positions are open to individuals who support the program and can help it achieve its conservation goals. Outreach materials should also describe the skills, or the group representation, that the program is looking for. The best members are often people with valuable skills, leadership qualities, good reputations in the community—and other commitments. To get people of this quality onto the committee, you need to court them diligently, so be sure to allot enough time and energy to developing relationships with them before the deadline.

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO Dealing with Community Concerns Through Committee Design

n the early 1990s, Colorado Springs, Colorado, despite its natural beauty and rapid growth, seemed to be the last place that would pass a new tax to protect open space. The voting population was dominated by retirees, who are known to oppose new taxes. Also, the local voting history showed support for very conservative causes, including tax limitations. DENISE AVITABILE

I

Nevertheless, after one failed attempt, the voters approved a one-tenth-cent sales tax in 1997 and created a program called TOPS (Trails, Open Space and Parks). Apparently, the urge to protect the special character of the local landscapes had sufficiently motivated residents of the area to support the tax. In addition, the campaign committee that designed the measure, with TPL’s assistance, had carefully tailored it to reflect community concerns about government expansion and possible control of the political system by developers. The selection of the TOPS advisory committee is a good example of the thoughtful and unique processes that can be created to address local issues. It offers an adaptable model for communities that want to give some autonomy to citizen advisers. Ann Oatman-Gardner, who was a member of both the campaign committee and the original advisory committee, explains that supporters wanted both to “avoid a takeover by developers” and to make the TOPS decisions “one step removed from politics.” Authors of the funding measure put several committee appointment and operational mechanisms into it to achieve those goals:  Certain stakeholder groups are guaranteed representation on the

committee, including those connected with trails, neighborhoods, and open space—the primary focuses of the tax. 52

MICHAEL MYERS FOR THE PALMER LAND TRUST

 Representatives of these interests are nominated by established

organizations.  An existing body, the Parks Board—as opposed to the City Council—

appoints the committee.  All projects must pass through the staff, the TOPS committee, the Parks

Board, and the City Council. The City Council cannot vote on a project that has not been reviewed by the committee.  The City Council cannot approve a transaction without the support of both

the TOPS committee and the Parks Board.

MICHAEL MYERS FOR THE PALMER LAND TRUST

“The process, with four approval steps, feels cumbersome,” Oatman-Gardner admits. “There are multiple levels of scrutiny for each deal, which means multiple lobbying efforts are required. But doing things this way gave the community the separation from politics that was so important.” Of course, this process is not what the public was paying for, but the program has purchased 4,013 acres, encompassing every local habitat and serving all parts of the city, in part because of the high quality of leadership provided by the TOPS committee. Apparently, the citizens like the way it works and the initial impressive results, because when they were asked in 2003 to authorize both an extension of the tax and increased funding for administration, operations, and management of TOPS-funded properties, 71 percent voted to approve them.

53

M I A M I - D A D E C O U N T Y, FLORIDA A Committee Ensures that the Spirit and Meaning of the Measure Are Followed

iami-Dade County has a history of citizen support for a high-quality system of parks and recreational facilities. The county secured its irreplaceable beachfront parks in the 1940s. In the 1970s, it made substantial investments in neighborhood greenspaces. In the 1990s, it focused on environmentally sensitive areas, communities that were still not well served, and ways to acquire tracts for regional parks. In 2004, voters chose to pay for infrastructure at those larger recreational facilities. PETER DOOLING, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

M

Since the Miami-Dade County Park and Recreation Department has all this experience, it is no surprise that its acquisition process is a model for other local governments. The Safe Neighborhood Parks measure, passed in 1996, is a good example. Assistant Director for Planning and Development W. Howard Gregg tells us that polling prior to the referendum showed that voters wanted to know where their dollars would be spent. Therefore, the measure’s language described the communities that would benefit, the projects planned for each area, and the amount of money that would be directed to each one. (But the list did not mention the specific parcels of land that might be purchased.) This successful referendum generated $200 million, “a wealth that was shared with our cities,” Gregg happily recalls. The referendum stipulated that a citizens oversight committee would oversee expenditures. “Their role is to be the watchdog,” Gregg explains. “We prepare periodic reports to the committee about the status of projects and grants, 54

55

PETER DOOLING, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

MICHAEL WRAY

problems we’ve encountered and an accounting of the finances.” The oversight committee has 13 members—one from each county commission district. A nominating committee, made up of prominent local people, recommends three possible members from each district. In each district, county commissioners select one member for their district from among the three possible choices. Many people involved in the Safe Neighborhood Parks (SNP) campaign have subsequently served on the oversight committee and stayed involved over the entire life of the program. Membership in the nominating committee was legislated in the ballot ordinance language to give greater comfort to voters. Representatives from stakeholder groups involved in such areas as business, tourism, and religion must be included in that committee. As a result of the good work of the nominating committee and the commitment of a group of citizens, the oversight committee has been a voice for the community and has seen to it that commitments are fulfilled. At the same time, Miami-Dade provides other communities with examples worth following.

56

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

MAKING THE SELECTION Staff members or a nominating committee should thoroughly screen applicants to check, at a minimum, that they are residents of the area and meet the qualification requirements. This screening should also incorporate a reference check. Under our recommended process, elected officials, therefore, make the final appointments from the prescreened pool of candidates, if the appointment has not been completely delegated as we described above. If the appointments need to be approved by the legislative body, all the elected officials should vote on the selection of each candidate, as in the Santa Fe example, and a majority vote should be sufficient. This prevents any elected official from blocking the appointment of a good nominee. ENGAGING THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE When a recently approved ballot measure creates a new program, the people who are best suited to serve on the committee are often those who have been working in the campaign. Because of their dedication to the cause, their familiarity with the program’s objectives, and their understanding of the history of the effort, they should be encouraged to serve as committee members, particularly during the formative period just after the voters approve the funding. This transition makes it likely that the policies and procedures created during the early work of the new committee will accurately reflect the promises of the campaign. If many people make the transition from the campaign to the advisory committee, much time will be saved, because these supportive people will not have to learn the history before getting to work. DESIRABLE TRAITS AND SKILLS Though science is important to criteria and plans, our research suggests that scientists can best help programs as technical advisers rather than as committee members. Similarly, although committed environmentalists are invaluable for building awareness and getting people interested in working for conservation, these individuals may be more useful to a new program as watchdogs, advisers, and proponents than as members of the committee. This is how initiatives, organizations, and businesses evolve. Different strengths and personality types are needed for different stages of internal development. As we have made clear, once the funding has been approved, the program must shift its focus to the business of implementation. At this stage especially, the program needs committee members who can build credibility with the landowners, businesses, philanthropies, and agencies that will make the program a success. This is not a call for wholesale dismissal of the active, knowledgeable visionaries who powered the campaign. In fact, as we have noted, it is best to retain members of

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

57

the campaign group. However, committee selection should favor the coolest heads, the best business minds, and the personalities most suited to promoting conservation to a broad audience in order to advance the program. THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS All members must be provided with complete background information so they can understand the history, structure, and values of the program. As the program grows, it is a good idea to develop a manual that traces its evolution and includes legal documents such as the ballot language, the bylaws of the committee, and all the program’s procedures. Equally important, the manual must also describe the thinking behind the program’s policies. During later transitions that bring new members onto the committee, it is critical to commit time and energy to providing them this valuable background information and bringing them up to speed. TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

KEN SHERMAN

To avoid the perception (or the reality) that the advisory committee is structuring or negotiating real estate deals, it may be useful to have a separate technical committee to advise the staff, and possibly the regular advisory committee, on issues of unusual complexity or concern. This is a way to tap volunteer local expertise on topics related to real estate, natural resources, land management, or any other issue likely to face decision makers. For example, it might be important to have an appraiser and a surveyor available to aid the program. In general, such a technical committee does not meet regularly. Rather, its members are available for consultation about specialized topics.

Efforts to protect drinking water sources, like this lake in NJ, may benefit from the assistance of expert technical advisors.

C H APTER

IV

SANDRA TASSEL

Staffing

NEW PROGRAMS encounter the universal questions of whether or not to hire staff to conduct acquisitions and how many staff members are needed to meet the program’s goals. There is no one answer to these questions. The needs of different communities vary widely, as does the amount of funding available for hiring. Also, some ballot measures impose caps on administrative expenses, including personnel. In addition, there are often political considerations to factor into the decision. Polling frequently reveals voter antipathy toward expanded government even when those voters support increased land protection or additional recreational opportunities. This chapter addresses the considerations involved in the important decision about adding employees to manage real estate purchases. It also shows the ways in which other communities have approached these issues. (See Chapter XI for guidance on hiring for the ongoing care of protected lands.) Community leaders long for specific information quantifying the number of employees needed per some amount of funding or population. We were not able to develop such refined recommendations but do provide some data that should prove useful at this important point in developing your program. 58

S TA F F I N G

BEST PRACTICES FOR STAFFING We are aware that voters are often concerned about the costs of administering a new program and wary of efforts to increase government staff. Therefore, these best practices offer advice on addressing such concerns. In general, you can increase public confidence and support by following a conservative and strategic hiring plan that brings on crucial staff only after all other options have been investigated.  Poll the voters. When a ballot measure is being planned, make con-

tact early on with likely voters and find out how much funding they would approve for overhead and staffing. Also try to find out how much public interest there is in controlling the percentage of funds to be dedicated to administrative costs as opposed to capital costs such as land acquisition and park development.  Find the happy medium. The most successful programs are aware of

the costs (both financial and political) of “building an empire” using funds that were approved for land protection. However, they avoid the other extreme, that is, getting acquisition funding and having no staff to administer the program. The appropriate, credible, and defensible level of hiring will be somewhere between these two extremes. Hiring should be done carefully, addressing community and program needs that cannot be handled by either existing staff or cooperative arrangements.  Reduce need. If your program is restricted by minimal funding for

staffing or other constraints, design program operations to reduce the need for staff. For example, simpler application and approval structures will decrease the hours needed for administration. Programs that rely on certain types of complex transactions, such as conservation easements, are more likely to require new staffing or consistent and dependable partnerships. (See Chapter IX for specific suggestions about using alliances to minimize hiring.)  Invest in a program coordinator. Spend your first staffing money on

a coordinator so that the program will have a full-time representative, particularly if it is going to have an ongoing acquisition program. This person will build community relationships for the program, so it is vital to have him or her at the beginning of a program. The coordinator is your front line answering questions, interfacing with landowners, researching potential partnerships, tracking possible sources of match money, serving as liaison for committees, organizing meetings, and handling the many details of program operations.

59

60

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

 Use existing staff. Consider using staff members who are already work-

ing within local government, but only if they are experienced with real estate transactions and sympathetic to the conservation mission of the new program.  Create partnerships. Research shows that almost all newly funded pro-

grams hire at least one person and many do much of their acquisition work in-house, but there is much to be said for cooperative arrangements. Results from the University of Washington research suggest nearly all programs that are less than five years old engage in partnerships. (See Figure 9 on page 66.) Partnerships take advantage of entities and individuals who have the knowledge, skills, and capacity to conduct real estate transactions and manage lands. When we discussed the groundwork phase, we suggested that you find out what partners might be available in your area: nonprofit, for-profit, or both. Landowners may respond more favorably to a third party instead of someone representing the government. Nonprofit land conservation organizations, such as land trusts, can partner with your program to offer landowners and the public the benefits of confidentiality, tax planning, ability to negotiate, and help in locating and securing philanthropic and other government funds. These partners may have access to funds for buying and holding land when government cannot act quickly enough to meet a landowner’s needs. You may save money on operations and management of properties by using volunteers and contractors rather than government employees. (See Chapter IX.) NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES PER ACQUISITION PROGRAM In 2005, graduate student Yoko Matsumoto, at the University of Washington, Evans School of Public Administration, conducted extensive research into the practices of county land conservation programs, including a national survey to which 144 counties responded. Based on her research, Matsumoto authored a report titled “Local Land Conservation Efforts: A Study of Selected County Programs in the United States.”8 Matsumoto reported that “the number of full-time employees (FTEs) engaged in land acquisitions in each program ranges from 0.1 FTE to 12.5 FTEs [See Figure 2].The average number is 1.6 FTEs and the median is 1.0 FTE. Hiring less than or equal to one FTE per program is the most common (57 percent), followed by two FTEs (25 percent).” Although the programs responding to the University of Washington survey varied greatly in size and age, Matsumoto found that “there is no correlation between the number of FTEs per program and the number of land transactions

61

S TA F F I N G

Fig. 2: Number of FTEs per Program 60 50

FREQUENCY ( % )

40 30 20 10 0

0-1

1-2

2-3

3-4

4-5

5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13

NUMBER OF FTES PER PROGRAM

implemented annually by the program, i.e., the number of FTEs does not necessarily increase in a program which carries out a larger number of land transactions.” In an effort to find out whether there were other predictors for the amount of staffing that would be needed by a new program, Matsumoto compared the employment figures supplied by programs that served areas with different levels of urbanization. In this analysis, she found that “the number of FTEs per program is significantly higher in urbanized areas than rural areas. As shown in Figure 3, the average number of FTEs is 1.0 in rural areas, 2.1 in suburban areas and 1.8 in urban areas.” Fig. 3: Number of FTEs per Program by Level of Urbanization 2.5 2.1

NUMBER OF FTES PER ACQUISITION PROGRAM

2.0

1.8 1.5 1.0

1.0

0.5 0.0

Rural

Suburban LEVEL OF URBANIZATION

Urban

62

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

Matsumoto also sought to answer the logical question, “Does a program with a larger amount of funding for acquisition hire more FTEs than a program with less funding?” The survey revealed that “on average, programs with a low level of funding (less than $1 million annually) hire 1.2 FTEs, programs with a medium level of funding ($1 million to $5 million) have 2.1 FTEs, and programs with a high level of funding (in excess of $5 million per year) have 2.3 FTEs. The average number for a medium level of funding is slightly higher than programs with a low level of funding.” Another factor that Matsumoto investigated was the effect of a program’s age on its various expenditures and policies. When the number of employees relative to the age of the program was considered, the research showed that “the number of FTEs is significantly higher in senior programs (more than 10 years) than developing or mature programs [Figure 4].” Matsumoto believes these results reflect that most senior programs are located in urban areas or suburban areas, which often have more funding and a greater need for staff associated with active recreation or facilities.

Fig. 4: Number of FTEs per Program, by Program Age 2.0

NUMBER OF FTES PER ACQUISITION PROGRAM

1.9 1.5

1.0

1.1

1.1

0.5

0.0

Developing (2-5 years)

Mature (5-10 years)

Senior (over 10 years)

PROGRAM AGE

COSTS OF STAFFING Although salaries and benefit packages vary from region to region and from position to position, the data from the University of Washington study can still be useful to new programs. The numbers that compare personnel expenditures with other acquisition costs are especially informative. “Figure 5 summarizes the annual land transaction costs per program. On

63

S TA F F I N G

average, the personnel cost is the major budget item and accounts for 57 percent of the total transaction cost, whereas the nonpersonnel cost accounts for 43 percent of the annual transaction cost. . . . a significant variation is found in the nonpersonnel costs which reflect a variety of factors including the parcel size of a property and different requirements for surveys and environmental assessments. Because of such a variation, the median cost may better represent the annual cost of an acquisition program for the universe of respondents.” The average and median cost of implementing land acquisition per transaction is summarized in Figure 6. Another possible source of information regarding the cost of staffing a conservation program is the data in the Land Trust Alliance’s (LTA) 2007 report Fig. 5: Land Transaction Costs per Program per Year NUMBER OF FTES

PERSONNEL COST

Mean

1.6

$76,917

Median

1.0

$30,000

$20,000

Range

0.1–8.0

$2,000–$654,500

$500–$500,000

1.5

$116,849

$106,709

Standard Deviation (SD)

NONPERSONNEL COST

$58,557

Fig. 6: Land Transaction Costs per Transaction PERSONNEL COST

NONPERSONNEL COST

Mean

$17,818

$8,813

Median

$15,000

$5,000

Range

$1,250–$50,000

$500–$26,000

$14,234

$7,576

Standard Deviation (SD)

on the salaries of land trust professionals titled Salaries and Benefits for Land Trusts’ Staff Rise, Keep Pace with Inflation.9 Individuals hired by land trusts will generally have similar capabilities and experience to those sought by public conservation programs. People with an inclination toward charitable employers—which

64

T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R O G R A M H A N D B O O K

generally offer lower pay than employers in the for-profit sectors—are likely also to consider public service positions, as demonstrated by the many land trust staff whose resumes include government experience, and vice versa. The LTA report draws from the responses of 194 land trusts from around the country. The average salary of executive directors was found to be $65,573. Salaries increased with the size and budget of the organization, and its mission. Smaller, newer land trusts pay an average of $45,687 to their executive directors while the largest, best-financed entities are led by directors earning $124,648, on average. As one might expect, the study found that the more specialized the job description and the more experience that the position required, the higher the salary. Salaries also varied by region. The Pacific region’s land trusts pay their fulltime executive directors $84,170 each year, the highest average in the country. The region with the second-highest salary costs was the Mid-Atlantic, where executive directors are paid an average of $67,608. See Figure 7 for information about the salaries of land trust executive directors. Fig. 7: Full-Time U.S. Land Trust Executive Director Salary Ranges

$100,000+ 12% $90,000-$99,000 5% $80,000-$89,000 6%