Upload
nathan
View
35
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Conservation Finance Opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Ernest Cook Senior Vice President The Trust for Public Land Chesapeake Bay Program Forestry Workgroup April 17, 2007. Overview. National Trends in Government Spending State Funding Options Eastern States Context - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
2
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview
– National Trends in Government Spending
– State Funding Options– Eastern States Context– Strategies to Accelerate Conservation
4
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
State and Local State and Local Ballot MeasuresBallot MeasuresState and Local State and Local Ballot MeasuresBallot Measures
7
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
•111 measures passed (79%)
• $1.7 billion created
2005
•219 measures
•164 measures passed (75%)
• $4.1 billion created
2004
•133 measures
•99 measures passed (74%)
• $1.2 billion created
2003
•192 measures
•143 measures passed (75%)
• $5.5 billion created
2002
8
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Conservation Funds Approved by YearConservation Funds Approved by YearConservation Funds Approved by YearConservation Funds Approved by Year
9
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005
10
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
TPL’s Conservation AlmanacTPL’s Conservation AlmanacTPL’s Conservation AlmanacTPL’s Conservation Almanac
28
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Comprehensive State By State AnalysisComprehensive State By State AnalysisComprehensive State By State AnalysisComprehensive State By State Analysis
30
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Conservation Almanac data fileConservation Almanac data fileConservation Almanac data fileConservation Almanac data file
34
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005Conservation Acres by State: 1998-2005
36
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
38
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
• Extend the “funding quilt”– All levels of government
– Varied sources of funding
– Leverage• Matching Funds• Loans
41
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
• Increase federal spending– Expand authorized acquisition areas– Line up compelling opportunities for
appropriations– New $50M grant program for community
forests proposed
42
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
• 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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
• Harness local government potential
44
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005LandVote Ballot Measures 1998 – 2005
47
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
New Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County Measures1987-1989
50
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
New Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County Measures1990-1994
51
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
New Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County Measures1995-1999
52
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
New Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County MeasuresNew Jersey County Measures2000-2003
53
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Florida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County Measures
1987-1989
55
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Florida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County MeasuresFlorida County Measures
1990-2003
56
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Virginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaVirginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaMeasuresMeasuresVirginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaVirginia, Maryland, PennsylvaniaMeasuresMeasures
57
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Chesapeake Watershed Measures ApprovedChesapeake Watershed Measures ApprovedChesapeake Watershed Measures ApprovedChesapeake Watershed Measures Approved
58
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
Confluence Greenway GovernmentsConfluence Greenway GovernmentsConfluence Greenway GovernmentsConfluence Greenway Governments
60
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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 $59,989.
62
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on 1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on Income RatioIncome Ratio1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on 1) Adjust NJ annual funding per capita based on Income RatioIncome Ratio
Household Income (2004 Est.)
Income Ratio: State Income to NJ Income
Income Adjusted Funding per Capita
Maryland 58,347$ 97% 35.21$ Pennsylvania 45,814$ 76% 27.65$ Virginia 54,301$ 91% 32.77$
63
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
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
© Copyright The Trust for Public Land
THANK YOU!
Ernest CookDirector, Conservation Finance ProgramThe Trust for Public Land