MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE JOHNSON COUNTY CONSERVATION BOARD AND THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 6, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 11:00 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan; absent: Larry Meyers.
Johnson County Conservation Board members present were: Tom Hoff, Gerald Morgan, Loren Horton and Amy Bouska.
Graves said that about a year and a half ago the Conservation Board got involved with the Land Use Plan in Johnson County and has started discussing the possibility of a major Land Preservation Initiative. He said a feasibility study and a public opinion survey were done to test the public interest in the possibility of a Land Preservation Bond. These studies have been completed.
Trust for Public Land Representative David Carter said he started his career in conservation 30 years ago, working for the Story County Conservation Board. Carter said that is where he learned a lot about conservation at the local government level. Carter said that his career took him to various places in the United States, but he spent almost 30 years in county government in North Carolina and has a background in understanding what goes on at the local level and all the issues involved.
Carter said the Trust for Public Land is an offshoot of the Nature Conservancy. He said that about 37 years ago a group decided that there was a need to have a voice at the local government. Their mission is conserving land for people, which is different from the Nature Conservancy who saves large landscapes. Carter said this has been his career for 35 years and he continues in this endeavor. Carter said the Trust has a national focus. He said there are 450 employees in 45 locations in 42 states.
Carter said the Trust works in a lot of partnerships and gets a lot of philanthropic giving. Two and a half years ago in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy they received a $4.5 million grant from the Doris Duke Foundation to work with a few selected states on implementing their Wildlife Action Plan. Carter said a few years ago Congress mandated that every state was to have a Wildlife Action Plan. The Public Land Trust and Nature Conservancy have gone through all of those action plans, prioritized them and came up with a dozen that were the best Wildlife Action Plans and set the resources to work with state and local governments in that endeavor. Carter said the State of Iowa was chosen as having an extremely good Wildlife Action Plan.
Carter said all services conducted so far have been covered by the Duke Foundation grant. He said he would like to talk about the national trends in land conservation, ballot measure basics and components of a successful measure. Carter said the trends are great. Carter said they help local government leaders create funding to protect those lands that matter most to the community. Carter said these are lands that the community wants to preserve. They provide technical assistance at a number of different levels. He added they have some of the most comprehensive documents that talk about the economic impact of parks and open space and their benefit to the community. He said they started working in conservation finance 11 years ago and have worked on 405 projects. 341 of those projects passed, for a success rate of over 84% and a total of $25.2 billion dollars in new land conservation.
Carter said timing is crucial on ballot measures and timing for land conservation ballot measure is best in a presidential election year. He said that in 2004 the Public Land Trust had 219 measures. He said that midterms are also good and 2006 was a successful year. Carter added that in 2007 there were a high number of local and state governments wanting to get involved. The ballot measures that have been passed over the last few years are clustered around New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida and Colorado. Those four states all have state matching funds, and research shows that when there is state money matched with local money it has a multiplier effect, with 3 to 1 leverage. Carter said there is not a lot of involvement in Iowa and the Midwest except for Missouri, where they established a funding source for the St Louis metro area.
Carter said the majority of land conservation money is coming from municipalities and counties. Communities want new funding sources that no one ever thought of before, but those do not exist. The four most likely funding sources at the state level are general obligation bonds, lottery proceeds, transfer taxes and license plate programs. Carter said the likely funding sources at the local level are General Obligation Bonds, dedicated property taxes, dedicated sales taxes and General Fund budget appropriations. Carter said in the past 12 years the state of Florida has allocated over $3 billion at the state level for land conservation. In order for local governments to access that money they must have a conservation plan in place.
Carter said the federal government does not provide too much money. Carter said the Public Land Trust has a lobbying staff in Washington that works with the federal legislators to help secure federal funding. Carter said the research shows that local finance is the essential foundation for any long term conservation funding. Competition is extremely high for both public and private sources and most times there has to be a local match. Carter said the trends at the state level are bi-partisan. In the February 5, 2008 primary elections, Forsyth County Georgia, a Republican and very fiscally conservative community, passed $100 million open space ballot measure with 70% in favor. The City of San Francisco also passed a $188 million ballot measure. Carter said he was concerned about economy, but yesterday's results shown that economy does not have an impact on passing ballot measures.
Carter said they started the process in Johnson County with a feasibility study to look at the various funding sources, the amount and duration, purposes and uses of funds, the timing, management and accountability. Carter said that data collection is extremely important in order for local elected officials to have accurate, up-to-date information in order to make informed decisions. The public supports conservation measures if they know there is going to be an annual audit and citizen's oversight. Even though the County has an annual audit every year, the general public does not know that. Voters who tend to be more fiscally conservative increase their support when they know there is going to be an audit. Carter said they follow a five-step business model tailored specifically for every county. Carter said the research shows that Johnson County is very different from a lot of other counties. Iowa has a high level of citizen involvement because of the caucuses. Carter said there is an all-time high distrust of government and there is a lot that community leaders can do to ensure the citizens that their voices are being heard, and conservation measures are a very big part of that.
Carter said the feasibility study has been completed and helped craft the public opinion survey. In October 2007 he hired American View Point and they telephoned 400 likely Johnson County voters representing both cities and unincorporated areas of the County and across all of the socio-economic areas. Carter said they start off in the survey with an uninformed ballot test where people are asked very quickly "if Johnson County was to have a $20 million ballot measure in November 2008, how would you vote on it." The next step is to give them a series of examples of how the money might be spent and ask them how appropriate that was. After more questioning the researchers return to the original question of support for the measure, to look for an increase in their support. Carter said as people found out more information about the potential ballot question, they became more comfortable with it and fully showed support.
Carter said they are currently at step three in the process design of the ballot measure. He is recommending a $20 million general obligation ballot placed before the voters of the County in November 2008 with a 20 year payback. Carter said there is a price point in every community, above from which the voters would not support it. Carter said they tested both a $10 million and a $20 million question for the community, and the difference was insignificant. There is strong support in Johnson County for the $20 million.
Carter said that about three weeks ago he sent draft ballot language to Graves, and forwarded it to the County Attorney and the Bond Counsel. Carter said that if the Board decides to place this on the November ballot they would get into a conservation campaign. Carter said the polling is a reality test and gives perspective of what is important in the community and helps with messages. He said one of the messages took away from the poll is that Johnson County has a very altruistic group of citizens and they understand that land preservation is good for the community.
Carter said the Board needs to look at affordable proposals, compelling purposes and accountability provisions. Ballot language is very crucial, since most voters would not have heard of the ballot question until they actually go to vote, so the language needs to be clear so people understand how the money would be spent to benefit them. Ballot language that emphasized specific benefits and programs, and includes mention of a citizen's advisory committee and an annual independent audit, has been successful, even in jurisdictions that have previously voted measures down. Each state has certain requirement mandates on how the ballot measure must be written. Carter said he makes a first draft recommendation based on the poll results, then the County Attorney and Bond Attorney will go through and make sure the ballot requirements are met.
Carter said the last step in the business model would be the conservation campaign. The Public Land Trust would help put together a local campaign committee. This committee would develop a budget, do independent private fund raising for the campaign, look for local endorsements, and work on getting out the vote. In Forsyth County, Georgia they used the internet in new ways to get people out to vote, including listserves and emails. Turnout increased so much that Forsyth County ran out of ballots and had to keep polling places open later. Carter said record turnout is expected in November 2008. It would be important to spend the summer informing people as to why it would be to their benefit if the general obligation bond is placed on the ballot.
Carter said the cost of the measure would be $2.25 per $100,000 property per month.
Stutsman asked if some of the money would be put aside to maintain any land purchased. Graves said that in the questionnaire that was submitted, it was mentioned that 20% is for maintenance. Stutsman asked if the Conservation Department would maintain the lands. Graves said that was correct.
R. Sullivan said that some of the public survey responses were good. Carter said that there was overwhelming support for the ballot measure with specific purposes in mind, and some of the highest numbers he had ever seen nationally came out of Johnson County. Protection for drinking water is in the 80th percentile nationwide, and in Johnson County it was 93%. 93% of Johnson County survey respondents were in favor of protecting water quality of rivers, lakes and streams, 92% in favor to protect the watersheds of the Iowa and Cedar Rivers, 86% were in favor of protecting natural areas from development, and 89% were in favor of providing new hiking, biking and walking trails. This support was across all areas of the county, rural and urban. Urban support is a little higher, but that is not atypical. Carter said that voters support the bond referendum by nearly 2 to 1 majority, even after hearing the amount of the tax increase. Over 55% to 57% is considered extremely strong support, and if the numbers are in the high 60s, even with the 60% supermajority requirement, that is a very good number to start with.
R. Sullivan said that 12% are undecided. Carter said there are a lot of people in the middle that are not sure what they want to do, and those are the voters that would benefit from additional information. There is always going to be a certain percentage of people that wouldn't support the measure no matter what. Carter said there are also people that would always support the measure, no matter what. Carter said they look at the core supporters and the undecided, because the undecided are crucial and the campaign would expect to pick up at least 50% of those undecided for a positive vote on the issue.
Harney asked if there is a certain amount needed every year, or if there would be a sale of bonds to have all the money upfront. Carter said the County would sell bonds only when the need existed. Carter said that when looking at purchasing land or any capital improvement, the money is budgeted over the revenues stream. Carter said there are fiduciary laws that need to be followed. There could be a sale four years before that money was spent and put into the pipeline, and that is a decision that the County would need to make. Selling $20 million right away would not be a fiscally conservative move, because it takes time to make the deals and have things happen.
Neuzil asked what the Conservation Board envisions as far as this kind of expenditure, as one issue would be what the money would be spent on. Graves said that is a reasonable question. Neuzil said that even with the ballot language that is proposed, it seems that the proposal is a little generic and people would want to know more specifically what the funding will go towards. For example, if the people are interested in trails there should be an effort to get trails to connect to the County parks. Stutsman asked who decides what the Conservation Board is asking for.
Graves said that they would determine the use of the money through a process that involves the survey responses, GIS data, and a planning process to help the Board put together a conservation plan. Neuzil asked if the funds could go to a City park rather than a County park, and if this measure would only be for the unincorporated areas of the County, or would it include cities. Graves said that the measure would affect the unincorporated areas unless the county has negotiated differently through 28E agreements. Neuzil said that at this point the $20 million would be used for funding outside the cities. Graves said that some things, like trails, might be included. Stutsman said that this would be a Johnson County effort and not an unincorporated effort versus a city effort because everybody uses the parks, and they are not limited to people in unincorporated areas.
Harney asked if the majority of funds would be used for park areas or would they also do wetland preservation and other things. Graves said the Conservation Board looked at doing a combination of things including preservation of unique natural areas and stream corridors. Stutsman said that if the ballot question passes there would be $20 million in general obligation bonds and asked if there would be a group coming to the Board to present a project and the Board would decide to levy money. Graves said the Conservation Board would be that group coming in front of the Board, as part of the regular budgeting process. Harney said he is unclear on how that would work. Harney said that if the Board would levy $27 per $100,000 only when asked, and there are only 20 years to get that done there has to be a process that the Conservation Board would do something every year. Graves said that is true, and noted that the financial plans would be for five years segments and would be reviewed annually.
R. Sullivan said that the tax would be collected if the measure passes, but the sale of bonds would be dependent upon availability of certain parcels of land. Carter said that is true. Carter said that if the measure passes the county has permission to tax the citizens at roughly $2.25 per month for an average $100,000 home. The Board would collect that tax as soon as it becomes authorized across the County. The Board then has the legal right to borrow money. Carter said the Board should not sell bonds and do not move on them because they would have to pay interest on them. Carter said that if the bonds are not used in a certain amount of time the fiduciary laws require the Board to pay that interest to the Federal government. Carter said that as the Conservation Board moves forward with their projects the Board would work with budget and financial staff to put together expenditure and revenue spreadsheets to match them. The Board cannot spend the money too quickly, and should begin selling the $20 million bonds immediately.
R. Sullivan said that the process is similar to road projects where the Board taxes all the time for the roads, but bonds are sold only as a project comes up. Carter said that is correct. Harney said that was one of his concerns, and he had talked with the Treasurer and Auditor about it. Harney said that the County is paying interest on the money it eats up from what is received from taxes. Carter said the Board should time the selling to coincide with the bond market because the market fluctuates, and they could find lower interest rates or lower prices.
Graves said that another question from the Board and the public would be how it would relate to agricultural land. Graves said that with the assistance of County Assessor Bill Greazel, he had determined that the tax for agricultural land was about $.26 per acre. Stutsman asked what would be the tax for commercial properties. Graves said commercial properties would be taxed at full rate.
Conservation Board Member Tom Hoff said that after paying property taxes over 38 years and voting in most elections, this measure is the first time he could go and vote and could say he either agrees or disagrees with this. Hoff said this is a unique situation when the citizen, rather than the Board, has a chance to say yes or no. Harney said that it is up to the voters to make the decision but would like to make sure they understand what they are voting for because it would cost $27 per $100,000 valuation of property. Carter said that is true.
County Treasurer Tom Kriz asked what interest rate was used to determine the levy amount. Carter said they used a 5% interest rate. Kriz asked what would happen if that was based on certain increments over 20 years, but the whole project would be done in that time. Carter said he cannot address that issue. Kriz asked what happens to land values when an issue like this is passed. Carter said at the national level, land prices are being depressed due to the sub-prime market, but there should not be a great deal of suppression in Iowa. Carter said that it is market driven and when negotiating for land there is going to be an appraisal done to determine if the price is fair. People always think their property is worth more than it is. Carter said when project managers negotiate the land in conservation projects, they pay the appraised price or less. There are no huge increases in land prices when a local ballot happens because the market does not allow it. Kriz said that the amount paid for the land was double the appraised value for the land purchased for the Human Health and Service Building. Carter said this is not an unusual thing to happen in an urban core. Kriz said that the average cost of houses in the county is not the $100,000 figure cited, and therefore they could end up doubling or tripling the monthly tax figure. R. Sullivan said the average cost of houses is around $131,000. Kriz said the Board needs to make sure that when things are marketed, people are not confused about the exact amount they would pay in taxes. As tax statements are sent out, people complain they are paying more than were told.
Graves said the Conservation Board is bound by statute to purchase property at appraised value. Stutsman said they could accept donations. Graves said that is true and donations are welcomed. Stutsman said she was contacted by a citizen concerned about the increasing burden of taxes. Stutsman said the Board would also need to discuss the jail issue and place it on a ballot, and that raises citizens' concerns. Graves said the jail issue was in the questionnaire.
R. Sullivan said there would be an abbreviated version of Carter's presentation at the Board meeting on February 7, 2008, which would be taped for broadcast. Carter said he could return for another meeting because they need to be transparent and up-front and honest with citizens to allow them to make the decision.
R. Sullivan asked County Auditor Tom Slockett what is the time frame for placing measures on the November 2008 ballot. Slockett said the Auditors Office needs to be notified by August 27, 2008. County Attorney Janet Lyness said that in the past, the County has hired a Bond Attorney, and there would be an up-front cost that the Board would incur in order to place the item on the ballot. Slockett said he had contacted Attorney Bob Josten to discuss the proposed measure, and Josten was not aware of any such measure being passed in Iowa and would need more specific information. Stutsman asked what the estimated cost would be for a Bond Attorney, because the Board has not budgeted for this. Lyness said she would contact Josten to get a cost estimate.
Stutsman said the Board has approved a trail plan and asked what happens if the Conservation Board proposes a trail where the Board has not agreed. Graves said he represents the Conservation Board on the Trail Commission and the two entities would work hand in hand. Harney asked if the trails need to tie into a park. Graves said that is not true.
Johnson County Trails Committee Member Janelle Rettig said that she serves on the State of Iowa Natural Resources Commission. Retting said that every month she handles projects where they are leveraging money to the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. Retting said it is hard to protect watersheds and build trails that connect in cities. She said that wetland protection could not be done in the City because the land is already developed. Retting said that it has to be a joint effort. Retting said that as a citizen of Iowa City, paying taxes that would be used in unincorporated areas is the best investment that could be done to improve the water quality in the City.
Rettig said that if the Board decides to put the measure on the ballot, over the course of a couple of months the Conservation Board would conduct public hearings and informational sessions and develop a five-year plan. Retting said the plan will be bonded to meet the 20-year timeline and asked if the Conservation Board would create a 20-year plan from the beginning. Graves said they would not create a 20-year plan. Retting said that similar to a road project, it is hard to determine what property to purchase or what trails to connect in 20 years from now. It is easier to make such determination in a 3 to 5 year plan. Retting would like to make sure the Conservation Board would inform the citizens about the first stages of the plan.
Rettig asked if governments in other areas of the country have been successful in taking a similar bond initiative and leverage it with state, federal and local money. Carter said the national average multiplier effect is two and a half to three times. If there is a local match, the chances of receiving funds from state or federal government go up exponentially. Retting said that taxpayers could expect to leverage between $15-16 million of public land.
Retting said that in the State, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation does the negotiating and purchases the land, and it is not uncommon for people to donate land or sell it lower than the appraised value. Retting said she is very supportive of the measure.
Neuzil said that the public needs to be informed that the Conservation Board would be spending the money. He asked if a park within a city would be eligible for funding, such as the County Farm, which is located in the city limits of Iowa City. R. Sullivan said the Solon Prairie is in the city limits of Solon. Graves said that there is a 28E agreement with the City of Solon that allows the Conservation Board to manage the property. Neuzil said it would be easier to convince city voters by showing that the Conservation Board could identify properties at the fringe of a city, or within a city. Neuzil said that if the funding is approved, the Conservation Board could see unique situations to preserve or assist in preserving a piece of property located at the fringe of a city.
Hoff said he is on the Iowa Heritage Foundation Board of Directors. Hoff said the projects today require many partners because the price of land is increasing, and the Heritage Foundation is involved in a joint project with Iowa City for Sand Prairie on South Gilbert Street. Hoff said that if a project is worthy, the County would get a number of people together. Neuzil said there was a perceived difference between County and City projects, but there is a potential to consider the projects as common.
Johnson County Heritage Trust President Dick Schwab said they like the initiative and would like to serve as a partner. Schwab said the language will be very important because preserving natural areas is different than open space or parks and there should be a lot of work in crafting the language to make it a passable measure and to get partnership.
Stutsman said the Board is the only one that can condemn land. Lyness said nobody can condemn land for trails. Stutsman asked if the Conservation Bard has the power to condemn land. Hoff said the Department of Natural Resources has not condemned land for over 30 years, and the biggest condemnation agency in the state is the Department of Transportation. Hoff said the Johnson County Conservation Board has never condemned land. Graves said that no condemnation would be utilized. Carter said they would include the fact that there would be no condemnation on all printed materials in the conservation campaign.
Jim Walters said he strongly supports the Conservation Board and asked why they did not start doing this 40 years ago. Walters said he is concerned that the country is heading into a very deep recession. A lot of people are on fixed income and cannot afford to pay more in taxes, and he suggested that the measure be put on a special election ballot instead of the general election. Walters said he worked on a campaign to stop the 1st Avenue extension and wanted to put that on a special election ballot, but instead it was on the 2000 general election ballot and lost. He said in a record turnout election, a lot of people would be seeing the measure for the first time when they went to vote. Without knowing what it entails, and knowing only that it is a tax, they would be more likely to vote against it.
Erin Irish said she strongly supports the measure because it is important to save the environment for current generations and generations to follow. She stated there was a published study that documented the alarming decrease in young peoples' interest in the environment. Irish said computers and games are so appealing that kids do not go outside and enjoy the environment. She noted that if they do not support the environment as kids, they definitely will not as adults.
Johnson County Heritage Trust Vice President Dan Black said he strongly supports the measure. Kent Park and a lot of other things would not have happened if people in the past were not taking initiatives. Black said it is tough to raise taxes, but this should have been done a long time ago. Black said he is willing to serve on committees and campaigns in support of the measure.
Neuzil asked if the Conservation Board has looked at the impact of the amount of work these initiatives would require and asked if Conservation would need more employees. He said it would be easier to put the issue on the general election ballot because the cost of conducting a special election is avoided. Neuzil said there are a number of issues as far as funding mechanisms and tax stacking. Neuzil said that voters have bonded for Kent Park. He said the Iowa River is the third most endangered and polluted river in the country, and addressing this and other conservation issues could not be done without additional funding. Neuzil said this is an opportunity to show that it can happen in Johnson County and it can happen in the state of Iowa and in communities around the country. Johnson County ought to be a leader on this. Neuzil said he has no problem putting this in front of the voters to help in the efforts to start address environmental concerns that should have been addressed long ago.
Adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on February 25, 2008 at 9:18 a.m.