Conservation Finance Opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

1

© Copyright The Trust for Public Land

2


Conservation Finance Opportunities in the Conservation Finance Opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay WatershedChesapeake Bay WatershedConservation Finance Opportunities in the Conservation Finance Opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay WatershedChesapeake Bay Watershed

Ernest CookSenior Vice PresidentThe Trust for Public Land

Chesapeake Bay ProgramForestry WorkgroupApril 17, 2007

3


OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview

– National Trends in Government Spending

– State Funding Options– Eastern States Context– Strategies to Accelerate Conservation

4


Federal Funding for Land ConservationFederal Funding for Land ConservationFederal Funding for Land ConservationFederal Funding for Land Conservation

• LWCF – Offshore Drilling as Funding Source– National Parks, Forests, Fish and Wildlife, BLM

• Grant Programs– Forest Legacy– Farmland Protection Program– Endangered Species– Coastal and Estuarine Program

5


Federal Conservation Spending 2002-2005Federal Conservation Spending 2002-2005Federal Conservation Spending 2002-2005Federal Conservation Spending 2002-20052002 2003 2004 2005 Total

NAWCA36,838,462$ 28,686,222$ 26,232,256$ 29,418,313$ 121,175,253$

Forest Legacy68,380,000$ 71,046,000$ 57,134,000$ 56,538,000$ 253,098,000$

CELCP15,763,900$ 36,006,400$ 50,833,129$ 38,376,053$ 140,979,482$

FRPP50,677,000$ 75,135,700$ 88,087,544$ 106,853,750$ 320,753,994$

LWCF30,752,600$ 24,933,907$ 29,130,930$ 23,989,346$ 108,806,783$

TOTAL 224,422,396$ 259,093,239$ 280,114,573$ 279,164,808$ 944,813,512$

6


State and Local State and Local Ballot MeasuresBallot MeasuresState and Local State and Local Ballot MeasuresBallot Measures

7


State and Local Ballot Measures 2002 – 2006State and Local Ballot Measures 2002 – 2006State and Local Ballot Measures 2002 – 2006State and Local Ballot Measures 2002 – 2006

2006

•180 measures

•134 measures passed (74%)

• $6.7 billion created

•140 measures



2005

•219 measures



2004

•133 measures



2003

•192 measures



2002

8


Conservation Funds Approved by YearConservation Funds Approved by YearConservation Funds Approved by YearConservation Funds Approved by Year

9


LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005

10


State

County

Municipal

Special District

Successful Measures100% = 1,348

Cons. Funds Approved100% = $36.2 B

2%

18%

77%

3%

40%

36%

23%2%

Since 1996, Voters Have Approved 1,348 Open Space Ballot Measures, Authorizing $36.2 Billion in Conservation Funding*

Analysis of Land Vote data by Peter Szabo for the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation*Note: This does not include legislatively authorized spending programs, such as those in Florida, New York, and Maryland, which were not submitted directly to voters

Who is Creating Funding?Who is Creating Funding? Who is Creating Funding?Who is Creating Funding?

11


Conservation Ballot Measures Pass Nearly 80% of the Time, With Voter Support a Consistent 60% Across All Jurisdictions

Source: LandVote, TPL/LTA, January 4, 2005; Consultant analysis

Success Rates by Jurisdiction

$ Approved % PassJurisdiction Type # Fail # Pass Total ($ billion) by Juris Avg. "Yes"State 6 32 38 11.4 84% 61%County 56 193 249 9.3 78% 59%Municipal 232 814 1,046 6.3 78% 60%Special District 22 32 54 0.3 59% 56%Total 316 1,071 1,387 27.3 77% 60%

Passage Rates Consistently HighPassage Rates Consistently HighPassage Rates Consistently HighPassage Rates Consistently High

Analysis of Land Vote data by Peter Szabo for the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

12


Conservation Finance Ballot MeasuresConservation Finance Ballot Measures National TrendsNational TrendsConservation Finance Ballot MeasuresConservation Finance Ballot Measures National TrendsNational Trends

• Bipartisan -- Red State/Blue State popularity

• Not subject to economic fluctuations

• Broad support base: environmental and business community

• Leading States: NJ, CO, FL, MA

13


State Funding Options for Land State Funding Options for Land Conservation…Conservation…State Funding Options for Land State Funding Options for Land Conservation…Conservation…

14


Cigarette Tax (Pennsylvania)Cigarette Tax (Pennsylvania)Cigarette Tax (Pennsylvania)Cigarette Tax (Pennsylvania)

•Pennsylvania Easement Purchase Program•$1.35/pack generates nearly $800M/yr•Farmland program receives $20.485M annual allotment

15


Real Estate Transfer Tax (Maryland)Real Estate Transfer Tax (Maryland)Real Estate Transfer Tax (Maryland)Real Estate Transfer Tax (Maryland)

• Program Open Space (POS) and Rural Legacy Program (RLP)

• .05% transfer tax for POS and RLP generates approximately $188M

• Overattained revenues from FY06 will add an additional $75M

• All transfer tax funds are dedicated to land conservation programs

16


Sales Tax (New Jersey)Sales Tax (New Jersey)Sales Tax (New Jersey)Sales Tax (New Jersey)

• Green Acres and Farmland Preservation Programs

• $98M/yr existing sales tax dedication• $3 billion over 30 years• Passed by voters in 1998

17


Documentary Stamp Tax (Florida)Documentary Stamp Tax (Florida)Documentary Stamp Tax (Florida)Documentary Stamp Tax (Florida)

• Florida Forever (FF) Program• 70¢ tax on deeds and 35¢ tax on notes

generates approximately $4 billion/yr• $300M/yr is dedicated for FF

18


Land Preservation Tax Credits (Virginia)Land Preservation Tax Credits (Virginia)Land Preservation Tax Credits (Virginia)Land Preservation Tax Credits (Virginia)

• Program capped at $100m/yr • Credit is 40% of the fair market value of the

land donation• Between 2000 and 2005 there were $380M in

tax credit requests and $134M approved

19


Deed Recording Surcharge (Massachusetts)Deed Recording Surcharge (Massachusetts)Deed Recording Surcharge (Massachusetts)Deed Recording Surcharge (Massachusetts)

• Community Preservation Trust Fund • $20 for deeds, $10 for municipal liens• Generated over $36M in FY06 to provide matching

funds to communities who adopt the Community Preservation Act (CPA)

• To date, 119 of 351 communities have adopted CPA

20


Lottery Funds (Colorado)Lottery Funds (Colorado)Lottery Funds (Colorado)Lottery Funds (Colorado)

• Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO)• In FY06, $125.6M was generated through lottery funds• 50% is allocated to GOCO, but is capped at $35M• 40% is allocated for local conservation efforts• 10% is allocated to Colorado’s Division of Parks and

Outdoor Recreation

21


Oil and Gas Royalties (Michigan)Oil and Gas Royalties (Michigan)Oil and Gas Royalties (Michigan)Oil and Gas Royalties (Michigan)

• Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Act • Capped at $500m• In FY06, the fund received $57.4m in oil and gas

royalties• Approx. $25-$35M are spent each year (75%

acquisition, 25% development projects)

22


Water Supplier Fees (Rhode Island)Water Supplier Fees (Rhode Island)Water Supplier Fees (Rhode Island)Water Supplier Fees (Rhode Island)

• Public Drinking Water Protection Act• 2.92¢ per 100 gallons water supplier levy generates about

$9M/yr• 1.054¢ is deposited into the Watershed Protection Fund

for watershed protection and water quality projects.• This “penny per hundred” is about $3.6M/yr and used to

support revenue bonds

23


Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program (Ohio)Program (Ohio)Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program (Ohio)Program (Ohio)• Funds from the federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund • Combines wastewater treatment and water source restoration projects• Communities enter into an agreement with a conservation partner (land trust) • Communities borrow money to facilitate the restoration project and receive a

reduced interest rate

24


2007 Proposed Bottle Bill (New York)2007 Proposed Bottle Bill (New York)2007 Proposed Bottle Bill (New York)2007 Proposed Bottle Bill (New York)

• No increase in deposit• Expansion of deposits to include non-carbonated

beverages• Requires unclaimed deposits of approx. $140M to be

returned to the state• In total, $180M would be deposited into the

Environmental Protection Fund for land conservation.

25


Ecosystem Enhancement Program Ecosystem Enhancement Program (North Carolina)(North Carolina)Ecosystem Enhancement Program Ecosystem Enhancement Program (North Carolina)(North Carolina)

• Established in 2003 using NCDOT mitigation funds from the federal government.• Identifies regions of environmental impact to protect water quality and habitat• Preservation component administered by Conservation Trust for NC • Approx. $100M available annually• Over 35,000 acres protected

26


Landfill Tipping Fees (Pennsylvania)Landfill Tipping Fees (Pennsylvania)Landfill Tipping Fees (Pennsylvania)Landfill Tipping Fees (Pennsylvania)

• Environmental Stewardship Fund• In 2002, tipping fee increased by $4.25/ton• Increase generated approx. $80M in FY06• Total tipping fee of $7.25/ton generates about

$140M• $4.25 fee increase will expire in 2012

27


TPL’s Conservation AlmanacTPL’s Conservation AlmanacTPL’s Conservation AlmanacTPL’s Conservation Almanac

28


Conservation Almanac: Why?Conservation Almanac: Why?Conservation Almanac: Why?Conservation Almanac: Why?

• Create a Definitive Source of Conservation Information

• Inform the Development of State and Local Policies in Support of Land Conservation

• Critical Background Information for Elected Officials Policymakers, the Media, Citizen Activists, and Researchers.

29


Comprehensive State By State AnalysisComprehensive State By State AnalysisComprehensive State By State AnalysisComprehensive State By State Analysis

30


Questions AddressedQuestions AddressedQuestions AddressedQuestions Addressed

• “What are other places doing to achieve their conservation goals?”

• “Are there any benchmarks to inform our work?”

• “What policies and programs might help us make progress in reaching our conservation objectives?”

31


Components of the AlmanacComponents of the AlmanacComponents of the AlmanacComponents of the Almanac

• State Conservation Achievements• Profile of State Programs and Funding

Mechanisms• State Policy Framework• LandVote™ Data• Federal Funding Analysis

32


The DataThe DataThe DataThe Data

• Baseline Data– How Many Total Acres are Under State

Ownership• Land Acquisition Data- 1998-2005

– Acres Acquired (fee vs. easement)– Dollars Spent Annually

33


Conservation Almanac data fileConservation Almanac data fileConservation Almanac data fileConservation Almanac data file

34


State Dollars and Acres for Conservation: State Dollars and Acres for Conservation: 1998-20051998-2005State Dollars and Acres for Conservation: State Dollars and Acres for Conservation: 1998-20051998-2005

35


Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005

36


Strategies to Accelerate Conservation for Strategies to Accelerate Conservation for Chesapeake Bay StatesChesapeake Bay StatesStrategies to Accelerate Conservation for Strategies to Accelerate Conservation for Chesapeake Bay StatesChesapeake Bay States

• Capitalize on public support for water quality• “Funding quilt”• Increase federal spending• Increase sources & amounts of state funding• Harness local government potential• Explore creative finance options

37



• Capitalize on public support for water quality

38


Ranked “very important”:1. 84% Protect drinking water quality2. 75% Improve water quality in lakes, rivers

and streams3. 70% Protect quality of life4. 63% Protect working farms and ranches5. 62% Protect natural areas

Poll of 1,500 registered voters surveyed April 3 to 12, 2004, by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) for the Trust for Public Land and the Nature Conservancy

April 2004 National Poll:April 2004 National Poll:Top Goals for Land ConservationTop Goals for Land ConservationApril 2004 National Poll:April 2004 National Poll:Top Goals for Land ConservationTop Goals for Land Conservation

39


Voter Support for Conservation Purposes

61%

69%

69%

71%

72%

74%

75%

75%

78%

84%

84%

87%

89%

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Land for Parks/Brow nfield Redevelopment

Bike, hike, w alk, ride trails

Acquisition of Specif ically Named Parcel/Area

Open Space

Scenic View s

Park Improvement (General)

Farms/Ranchland

Public Access (w ater)

Preserve Historic Lands

Wildlife

Natural Lands/Areas

Water Quality/Rivers/Streams

Drinking Water

Pu

rpo

se

Percent Support

Based on 26 polls conducted by the Trust for Public Land, Dec. 2003 -- Dec. 2004

Voter Support for Conservation PurposesVoter Support for Conservation PurposesVoter Support for Conservation PurposesVoter Support for Conservation Purposes

40



• Extend the “funding quilt”– All levels of government

– Varied sources of funding

– Leverage• Matching Funds• Loans

41



• Increase federal spending– Expand authorized acquisition areas– Line up compelling opportunities for

appropriations– New $50M grant program for community

forests proposed

42



• Increase sources and amounts of state spending– Dedicated revenues

– Tax credits in MD, PA ?

– Tipping fees in VA ?

– Thinking BIG:• Florida $1 billion per year?• Minnesota 3/8 cent sales tax?

43



• Harness local government potential

44


April 2004 National Poll Reveals Strong April 2004 National Poll Reveals Strong Support for Land ConservationSupport for Land ConservationApril 2004 National Poll Reveals Strong April 2004 National Poll Reveals Strong Support for Land ConservationSupport for Land Conservation

• 65% of U.S. voters would support small increase in taxes to fund state or local government programs to purchase land to “protect water quality, natural areas, lakes, rivers or beaches, neighborhood parks and wildlife habitat”– 56% would pay $50 more per year in taxes

– 60% would pay $25 more per year in taxes

45


Scale of Local Conservation Finance:Scale of Local Conservation Finance: Local Ballot MeasuresLocal Ballot MeasuresScale of Local Conservation Finance:Scale of Local Conservation Finance: Local Ballot MeasuresLocal Ballot Measures

46


LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005

47


New Jersey Leadership in Ballot New Jersey Leadership in Ballot MeasuresMeasuresNew Jersey Leadership in Ballot New Jersey Leadership in Ballot MeasuresMeasures

• All 21 of 21 Counties have created a special dedicated fund for land conservation

• Nearly 200 Municipalities have adopted a property tax increase for open space

• Total local government tax collections exceed $200 million per year

• In 1998, voters approved a Statewide measure to dedicate $98M in sales taxes per year to the Garden State Preservation Trust

48


The New Jersey ModelThe New Jersey ModelThe New Jersey ModelThe New Jersey Model

1. Local governments have the authority to establish a dedicated fund for open space using the property tax, enacted in 1987;

2. The State makes a substantial and reliable annual investment, providing matching funds that are a compelling incentive for local governments to tax themselves for land conservation; and

3. New Jersey presents its spending proposals for land conservation at all levels of government to its voters, and this has created a political culture that supports public investments in land conservation funds.

49


New Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County Measures1987-1989

50



51



52



53


Case Study: FloridaCase Study: FloridaCase Study: FloridaCase Study: Florida

• Florida has enabled Counties to pursue a variety of funding options– General Obligation Bonds– Local Government Infrastructure

Sales Tax• All require support by a simple

majority of voters

54


Florida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County Measures

1987-1989

55


Florida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County Measures

1990-2003

56


Virginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaVirginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaMeasuresMeasuresVirginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaVirginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaMeasuresMeasures

57


Chesapeake Watershed Measures ApprovedChesapeake Watershed Measures ApprovedChesapeake Watershed Measures ApprovedChesapeake Watershed Measures Approved

58


St. Louis County, MissouriSt. Louis County, MissouriSt. Louis County, MissouriSt. Louis County, Missouri

• $280 million passed (in St. Louis County), included in Metro Park and Recreation District

• Pass 70/30• Columbia Bottom Project

– Protected 162 Acres, part of plan to develop 40-mile Confluence Greenway along the heart of the Mississippi River

59


Confluence Greenway GovernmentsConfluence Greenway GovernmentsConfluence Greenway GovernmentsConfluence Greenway Governments

60


Put the Bay on the Ballot?Put the Bay on the Ballot?Put the Bay on the Ballot?Put the Bay on the Ballot?

• 3 State “Clean the Bay” Measure• Placed on the ballot in every county by the

state legislatures• State matching incentives• Proceeds divided between county programs,

regional trust funds• Coordinated campaign in 2010?

61


Applying the New Jersey Model to MD, PA, VAApplying the New Jersey Model to MD, PA, VAApplying the New Jersey Model to MD, PA, VAApplying the New Jersey Model to MD, PA, VA

New Jersey local governments raised $315 million per year, or 36.2 per capita. (8,724,560 Pop. 2006 Est.)

New Jersey's median household income was $59,989.

62


1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on 1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on Income RatioIncome Ratio1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on 1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on Income RatioIncome Ratio

Household Income (2004 Est.)

Income Ratio: State Income to NJ Income

Income Adjusted Funding per Capita

Maryland 58,347$ 97% 35.21$ Pennsylvania 45,814$ 76% 27.65$ Virginia 54,301$ 91% 32.77$

63


2) Determine share of population in metropolitan 2) Determine share of population in metropolitan area (urban pouplation share is used as a proxy)area (urban pouplation share is used as a proxy)2) Determine share of population in metropolitan 2) Determine share of population in metropolitan area (urban pouplation share is used as a proxy)area (urban pouplation share is used as a proxy)

Total Population Urban Pop. Share Metro PopulationMaryland 5,615,727 0.86 4,829,525 Pennsylvania 12,440,621 0.76 9,454,872 Virginia 7,642,884 0.71 5,426,448

64


3) Apply funding per capita to metro population to 3) Apply funding per capita to metro population to estimate annual funding based on NJ modelestimate annual funding based on NJ model3) Apply funding per capita to metro population to 3) Apply funding per capita to metro population to estimate annual funding based on NJ modelestimate annual funding based on NJ model

Income Adjusted Funding per Capita Metro Population

Annual Projected Funding with NJ Model

Maryland $ 35.21 4,829,525 170,040,355 Pennsylvania $ 27.65 9,454,872 261,386,346 Virginia $ 32.77 5,426,448 177,808,484

65


4) Compare actual funding estimates from 1998-4) Compare actual funding estimates from 1998-2006 to potential under NJ model2006 to potential under NJ model4) Compare actual funding estimates from 1998-4) Compare actual funding estimates from 1998-2006 to potential under NJ model2006 to potential under NJ model

Conservation Spending $ Approved (Annual Est.)

Annual Projected Funding with NJ Model

Maryland 66,000,000$ 170,040,355$ Pennsylvania 101,000,000$ 261,386,346$ Virginia 24,082,023$ 177,808,484$

66


Next StepsNext StepsNext StepsNext Steps

• Feasibility Research– Legal options– Fiscal capacity– Potential legislation

• Public Opinion Surveys– Support for protecting forests– Spending tolerance– Impact of state incentives– Program design options

67


THANK YOU!

Ernest CookDirector, Conservation Finance ProgramThe Trust for Public Land

Conservation Finance Opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Documents

Transcript of Conservation Finance Opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed