The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-03-12 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda Packet5e�. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 12, 2002 6:30 p.m. —Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. February 12, 2002 Minutes 4. Welcome CommissionerMissieHickey 5. Public Information Meeting: Ivy Park Tennis Courts 6. Dakota County Farm and Natural Area Protection Plan 7. Parks 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan 8. Updates • Recreation Programmer's Update • Hockey Arena • Fort Snelling Athletic Facilities • Scooter and Skateboard Safety • Suburban Dakota County Greenway Project • DNR Matching Grant Applications • Garron/Acacia Site • Ridder Property Subdivision • Town Center • Police Report 9. Other Comments 10. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Richard Spicer, Commissioners Stan Linnell, Larry Craighead, Paul Portz, Raymond Morris, and Dave Libra. Commissioner Missie Hickey was excused from the meeting. City Staff present were Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander, Recreation Programmer Teresa Gangelhoff and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. MINUTES Commissioner Moms moved to approve the January 8, 2002 minutes with revisions. Commissioner Portz seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PARKS 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Kullander gave the Commission an update on the status of the five-year Parks Capital Improvement Plan. Chair Spicer asked Mr. Kullander what the current balance of the Special Parks Fund was. Mr. Kullander said that the balance of the Special Parks Fund as of January 1, 2002 was approximately $315,000I Mr. Kullander added that the exact balance of the Special Parks Fund was in constant flux because of continuous deposits and withdrawals into and out of the fiend. Mr. Kullander added that the development of the Ridder property may or may not be a source of revenue for the Special Parks Fund, depending on what form the Park Dedication ultimately took. (Commissioner Linnell apologized for leaving the meeting at this point, saying that he had another meeting he needed to attend. Commissioner Linnell was then excused from the meeting.) Mr. Kullander said that the Special Parks Fund 2002 budget anticipated that the City cell/pcs antennae rent revenue would continue to go directly into the Special Parks Fund. The Commission then discussed revising the Five -Year Parks Capital Improvement Plan. The Commission directed Mr. Kullander to include five projects requested by MHAA for completion in 2002 and 2003. (MHAA proposed paying 50% of the costs in $4,000 per year payments.) The Commission directed Mr. Kullander to submit the revised five year pIan to the Council. Commissioner Moms moved to recommend that a line item of up to $24,000 fora "tier one" skateboard park be tentatively added to the CIP for the year 2003, contingent upon continual receipt into the Special Parks Fund of $60,000 in annual cell/pcs antennae rent revenue. Commissioner Libra seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 UPDATES Staff provided updates on the following items: • Recreation Programmer's Update • Valley Park Bridge • Special Parks Fund • DNR Matching Grant Applications • Garron/Acacia Site • Ridder Property Subdivision • Town Center • Hockey Arena • Heights Highlites • Police Report OTHER COMMENTS Commissioner Portz said that he would like a copy of the letter that the Council sent to the consultant performing the feasibility study for the hockey arena outlining the specifications for the arena. Commissioner Portz added that he would like to know who is actually performing the feasibility study. ADJOURN Motion made to adjourn by Spicer and seconded by Libra. AYES: NAYS: The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant RE: Welcome to Commissioner Missie Hickey DATE: March 5, 2002 Discussion It is my pleasure to introduce Missie Hickey as the newest Parks and Recreation Commissioner for the City of Mendota Heights. Missie's appointment was made official by the City Council on February 5, 2002. Missie has extensive experience with yoirth sports in Mendota Heights through the participation of her own children. Missie also served on the Hockey Arena Task Force last summer. Action Required Join me in welcoming Missie Hickey to the Parks and Recreation Commission. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant RE: Public Information Meeting on Ivy Park Tennis Courts DATE: Mazch 5, 2002 Discussion At the December 11, 2001 meeting of the Pazks and Recreation Commission, Mr. Kullander informed the Commission that the Council wished the Commission to hold a public meeting on the removal of Ivy Park Tennis Courts early in 2002. Mr. Kullander suggested the March meeting because the timing of the meeting would work well with the issuance of the City Newsletter. City Staff has published the attached article in the most recent Heights Hilites newsletter inviting people to come to the public meeting on March 12, 2002. Councilmember Mary Jeanne Schneeman has also indicated that she will attend the Parks Commission meeting to participate in the discussion on this issue. In addition, Staff will be prepared with rough estimates of the costs of various options such as removing or resurfacing/reconstructing the tennis courts. Action Required Discuss the future of the Ivy Park Tennis Courts with any residents in attendance. IVY PARK TENNIS COURTS — REPAIR OR REMOVE? The Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 630 pm to discuss the future of the Ivy Park Tennis Courts. The tennis courts are currently in bad condition. The City is currently undecided as to whether they should be resurfaced or removed due to the availability of other tennis courts elsewhere in the City, the limited funds available for public improvements, and the general decline in the popularity of tennis as a participatory sport. If you have an opinion on this subject, please come to the Parks Commission meeting at City Hall on March 12, 2002. We hope to see you there! CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant RE: Dakota County Farm and Natural Area Protection Plan DATE: March 5, 2002 Discussion Curt Chatfield of Dakota County has informed me that Dakota County has adopted a Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan as of January 29, 2002. One of the challenges that the plan faces is funding, and Dakota County is considering a Countywide open space referendum for roughly $5420 per household. There is no process at this time for evaluating or protecting properties until the funding issue is resolved. For more information, Curt Chatfield's phone number is 952-891-7022. The plan is also available on the Dakota County website. Councilmember Mary Jeanne Schneeman has indicated that she will attend the Parks Commission meeting to participate in the discussion of this issue. Action Required Discuss the Dakota County Farm and Natural Area Protection Plan with Councilmember Mary Jeanne Schneeman. Planning - Projects - Project Update Page 1 of 2 dome P_ R Et r G Cr r ly Sur u®pla n� ..EG, or rent ..t,Irc1G�� a,:,..• RW Ela Ini GI'Ic.ds mow ofind... ere are... Planning Department Plans &Issues- The Farmland and Natural Areas Project Planning Home Saving Dakota County's Natural Heritage- Project Update January, 2001 Contact Us Project Need Projects & Farmland and natural areas are threatened by growing pressures to convert these Documents lands into urban development or into non -farm, rural residential home sites. Local governments need a "toolkif of methods and a program to provide them with more ways to protect farmland and natural areas in Dakota County. Project Objectives 1. Hold community meetings to identify the issues and obtain citizens' opinions. 2. Identify and prioritize important farmland and natural areas by need for protection. 3. Conduct a county -wide survey of citizen support for ways to fund protection efforts. 4. Acquire donated conservation easements on 300 to 500 acres of priority lands. 5. Develop a plan with recommendations on tools and programs for local governments. Project Schedule and Funding Started on July 1, 1999; will have a land protection plan completed by June 30, 2001. Funded by a grant from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Project Partners Dakota County Office of Planning, Dakota County Township Officers' Association, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, Minnesota Farmers Union, University of Minnesota Extension Service - Dakota County, 1000 Friends of Minnesota, Friends of the Mississippi River, Minnesota Land Trust, and The Trust for Public Land. Where We Are Now -What's Next I . The first three project objectives have been accomplished. 2. We will meet with local officials/representatives from the suburban cities and the townships to ask if they will support the proposed land protection plan. 3. We will also meet with realtors, developers and bankers to get their input. 4. We will complete the land protection plan and ask for comments from citizens at another round of public meetings located throughout the County. 5. County staff will revise the plan and bring it back to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners for their approval. 6. County staff will prepare a final project report and submit the land protection plan to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources . 7. Depending on support from the County Board, from local units of government, and from the State Legislature and Metropolitan Council, County staff will explore ways to establish and begin implementing a land protection program in Dakota County. Project History http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/planning/project%SFupdate.htm 3/5/2002 Planning - Projects - Project Update Page 2 of'2 October/November 1999 -- Introductory Meetings Over 200 residents met at six public meetings throughout Dakota County to discuss what farmland and natural areas should be protected. At the meetings, citizens used maps to identify farmland and natural areas they felt were important. November 1999 -- Visit by Ted Mondale and the Metro Council They toured farming areas, and met with over 100 residents, the Township Agricultural Protection Task Force, and project partners to discuss farmland loss in Dakota County. Mr. Mondale expressed support for local farmland protection efforts and offered to work toward agricultural protection through Metropolitan Council regional policy. February 2000 -- Financing Options Survey (January 2000) A random telephone survey of Dakota County households was conducted to find out if taxpayers support protecting farmland and natural areas. A majority of those surveyed were willing to fund a farmland and natural areas program, within certain limits. (For more details, see "Project Summary Slide Show" at the project website.) March 2000 --Visit by Governor Ventura Governor Ventura and several of his Commissioners met with over 200 citizens, the Township Agricultural Protection Task Force, and the Dakota County Board of Commissioners to discuss farmland loss and urban growth issues. The Governor expressed interest in and support for the project. March/April 2000 -- Meetings on Land Protection Methods Citizens were introduced to methods used in Minnesota and other parts of the country to protect farmland and natural areas. Participants were asked to watch a video that explained the use of Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Rights and comment on their potential use In Dakota County. July 26th, 2000 --National Experts Discuss Farmland Protection Options Tom Daniels and Ed Minehan addressed a large group of citizens in Farmington. They discussed how farmland and natural areas have been protected in other parts of the United States, and answered numerous questions from the audience. They also met with the project partners to discuss strategies for a farmland protection program in Dakota County. September, 2000 -- Mapping and Analysis of Land Areas Completed The Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District completed the mapping and analysis of farmland and natural areas in Dakota County. The results identify the location of land resources in the County as well as the quality of the resource. November, 2000 -- Meetings on Land Protection Scenarios and Maps Citizens reviewed maps of farmland and natural areas in the County and reacted to a at of scenarios for protecting priority lands. Citizen input from these meetings will be used to shape the recommendations that will be made in the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan. The Office of Planning welcomes any comments from the public pertaining to the Farmland and Natural Areas Project. Email your comments to kurt.chatfield@co.dakota.mn.us or mail to the Office of Planning at the address below. Homed Nunt ews & Events I CoY Services I,Em�l�ment LE -Government � Site Index I Departments I Elected Officials � Links I Contact � Privacy Policy &Disclaimer Department of Information Technology Copyright ©2000 http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/planning/project%SFupdate.htm 3/�/2002 I Draft for Discussion Purposes On/y The Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Project Collaborative: Who are we? Dakota County Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Dakota County Township Officers Association Friends of the Mississippi River Minnesota Farmers Union Minnesota Land Trust The Trust for Public Land 1000 Friends of Minnesota Township Agricultural Protection Task Force University of Minnesota Extension Service — Dakota County Acknowledgements: Dakota County wishes to thank the citizens of the County for their participation in this planning process and for the submission of scenic farmland and natural area photos, many of which are used throughout this pIan. Dakota County is truly a beautiful place, and it is our hope that this plan will help preserve high priority lands in a fiscally responsible manner that is in accordance with the values of the citizens of Dakota County. 'r.a t Mr Discussion Purposes es L nlY Table of Contents Introduction Executive Summary Chapter 1: What is the problem and who cares? RapidGrowth...........................................................................................................1 Citizen Concern over loss of farmland and natural areas ........................................ 1 Maintaining the quality of life in Dakota County". ..... ............ 0.11,11, ................... Z Impactof land use change................................................................................... Loss of natural areas................................................................................................3 Lossof farmlands.....................................................................................................4 Supportfor land protection.....................................................................................4.5 Willingness to pay for land protection......................................................................6 Movingforward.........................................................................................................7 Chapter 2: Farmland Resource Farmland as a resource...........................................................................................9 Farm related businesses...............................................................................4.0........10 Threat Analyzing the threat to farmland and farming..........................................................11 Dynamics of impending urbanization.......................................................................11 Transition point from farm to non -farm communities.....................4.........................12 Analyzing the threats to farmland in Dakota County.......................................4........12 What is needed to make farming work in Dakota County.-. .... 4 ....... ........... 13 Opportunities to Protect Farmland Public purpose for protecting farmland.........................:..........................................15 Responding to challenges........................................................................4...............10 An incentive based approach to land conservation..............................4..................16 Conservation easements................................................................4........................16 Narrowing down what lands to protect and where...... wl'..4 ..... WWIW_W... ......... 4.W4 ........ W... 16 Opportunities to protect farmland using conservation easements ..............4............17 Assumptions of three conservation easement scenarios........................................17 Development of farmland protection strategies....................................................... 21 Investigation of agricultural protection incentive programs. ... 4 ...... w.4..w. ..... 4 ...... 4 ....... 22 Recommendations from agricultural program studies...........................4........4...4....25 Opportunities to assist cities and townships with local controls. ... 4.ww4IWW ... L'A ... &"4 ..... 425 Disu4 ssion PY rposes Only Chapter 3: Natural Areas Resource Natural areas as a resource....................................................................................127 Overview of natural areas... ......... 4 ... m.4 ....... ........... m ........ .......... 00 ....................... 27 Tour of Dakota County's remaining natural areas...................................................27 Threat Analyzing what is needed to make natural areas sustainable ................. 0...............37 Analyzing the threat to natural areas.................................................................4.....37 Protection using existing tools....................................................6......0.....................37 Opportunities to Protect Natural Areas Public purpose for protecting natural areas... ........... 1**. ........ ****.111 ....... 1111. ............. 6138 Responding to challenges., ... I ...... I.. .... 4 .............. I ....... & ........ & ... ........ v ................. 38 An incentive based approach to land conservation...........................1...............4.....38 Conservation easements.......................................................................................1.39 Advantages and disadvantages of using conservation easements ...............6.........40 Dakota County citizen perspectives................................................4....... A................40 Narrowing down what lands to protect and where...................................................41 Natural corridors approach,. ...... 11 ................... 0'.4 ........ ........................... 4.*.* ...... & ... v., 42 Three natural area protection strategies......................................4...........................43 Opportunities to coordinate with other agencies.... ........ I ....... 0 0 * * . . ' a 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 4 0 0 a . . 0 0 . 0 0 .44 Public protected natural areas and private unprotected area.........................46 Current natural area projects and studies in Dakota County... .... &.& ...... ........... 47 Partnerships with non-profits....................................................................................48 Opportunities to protect land with large companies/landowners .............................49 Implementation Implementing plan strategies................................................................................... I-2 ProgramMaps..........................................................................................................I-3 Implementing levels/options. ... 4 ... 4 ...... 4--4 .......... 4.ww ......... 4- ..... 4 ...... W ................... ....... 1-4 OtherOpen Space Needs ... ......... ............ ............ ........... ............... .................. ........ 1-6 Challenges/Program Specifics ... ........... ........... ........ .... ............. ... ..... 4..... ................. 1-7 Fundin 1-12 Appendices Appendix A: Stakeholder Perspectives Appendix B: Project History and Fact Sheets Appendix C: The Preservation Tool Box Appendix D: County Financing Options Survey raft for DisULjjssicn fo raoses Orly Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan Executive Summary Project Purpose The purpose of the farmland and natural area project is to address citizen concern over the loss of farmland and natural areas and determine how to protect these areas using incentive based tools. Overview In the late 1990s, Dakota County learned through focus groups, a Citizens' Jury and telephone surveys that citizens were interested in protecting farmland and natural areas. The 2001 Dakota County Residential Survey confirms that 91 % of people surveyed said that it is important that the County pursue an active role in protecting farmland from development. Similarly, 96% of people surveyed said it was important for the County to play an active role in protecting natural areas. In response to citizen concerns, the County Board of Commissioners applied for and received a $200,000 grant from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) to work in partnership with other government agencies and non -profits to: • Hold community meetings to identify the issues and obtain citizen opinions • Identify and prioritize important farmland and natural areas • Conduct a county -wide survey of citizen support for ways to fund land protection • Acquire donated conservation easements on 300-500 acres of land • Develop a plan with recommendations on tools and programs for local governments This plan was written to summarize citizen concerns, identify the threats to farmland and natural areas, and tailor a strategy that fits the needs of Dakota County's citizens to protect high priority farmland and natural areas. Overall Findings Finding Dakota County continues to be one of the fastest growing counties in the Midwest. Finding Surveys of Dakota County citizens show that growth is the number one concern. Finding Citizens are concerned about how growth impacts farmland and natural areas and want Dakota County to play a role in protecting these resources. ;i� draft for Discussion Pur uses Drily Finding Ina Feb. 2000 County Financing Options Survey, citizens have indicated a willingness pay for farmland and natural area protection within limits (about $9.65 per $100,000 of home value per year). Finding Both farmland and natural areas are threatened by development, but the challenge of protecting farmland is different from protecting natural areas. The challenge of protecting farmlands is that they are relatively inexpensive but they are expansive in quantity. The challenge of protecting natural areas is that they are few and far between but are often some of the most expensive lands in the county. Finding There are approximately 48,600 acres of priority natural areas in Dakota County. About 12,600 of those acres are currently being protected by other agencies and 36,000 acres are in private ownership. Finding There are approximately 221,000 acres of farmland in Dakota County. About 42,000 of those acres are considered high priority farmland because they are highly productive and adjacent to natural areas. Finding Priority farmland and natural areas were identified using the following criteria developed at public meetings. The priority areas are identified on the maps on following page: :NATURAL AREAS FARMLAND 42,000 for were identified using 36,000 priority acres were identified using the priority acres protection the following criteria: following criteria: • Farmland outside of the 2040 MUSA boundary Lands of biologic significance • - Lands adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams ; - Lands that could improve/protect water quality • Lands that provide wildlife habitat • Lands that provide some level of public access • Lands that can be protected in natural corridors iv Draft for D;svuss;on Purposes Only High Priority Farmland and Natural Areas .T:. _ .__ S rriM.gr rr„u.r�,,.r rn,r.,r„u..e„�„�.,•. r rtrdn;7.1'ua,rai.lnr t:-,.v.rre�» Xncuun4, �' 12 ?qq y { AL a � Iiraft ;or Discussion Purposes Only Farmland Findings Finding Local factors that influence farm economics include: land prices, demand for land for urban development, investment in the farm operation, and land use conflicts from rural residential development. Finding Communities can support farming through local plans and zoning ordinances that encourage agriculture and direct non -farm land uses outside of farming areas. Finding Agricultural 1/40 zoning and the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve Program have been effective at limiting rural residential development in communities that have low development pressure, but they have been ineffective in communities with higher development pressure. Finding Successful farmland protection programs have tried to protect as many farming operations as possible in large contiguous blocks of land. National experts recommended protecting a minimum of 50,000 acres using a variety of tools. Finding This project used an incentive based approach to land protection and conservation easements are one example of a voluntary tool that can be used to protect farmland in Dakota County. Finding The County has an opportunity to leverage local dollars to obtain funding from other Federal, State and metropolitan agencies that support farmland protection. Finding Through an extensive citizen participation process, a "hybrid" farmland protection scenario was developed to use a combination of conservation easements, Agriculture Preserves, and local plans and zoning. Finding The public purpose for protecting farmland includes: a) Protect productive agricultural land as a natural resource b) Maintain tax paying open space on productive land c) Support an important industry in rural Dakota County d) Preserve rural character and quality of life as desired by the County's citizens e) Protect the 100 million dollar farm sales economy f) Promote a land use that generates more taxes than service costs g) Protect a source of fresh farm products adjacent to the metropolitan area L)raft f r Discussion Purposes Only Natural Area Findings Finding Many of Dakota County's remaining natural areas are candidates for residential development. The same qualities that make these lands desirable to develop make them desirable to preserve. Finding Communities can support natural areas through local plans and zoning ordinances but cannot deny landowners reasonable use of their properties. Finding Traditionally, natural areas have been protected using park dedication and fee title acquisition. Public parks are one way to protect natural areas, but natural areas can also be protected on private lands using conservation easements. Finding Successful natural area protection programs protect natural systems in connected corridors. These corridors provide an ecologically functioning habitat that supports a diversity of plant and animal species. Finding This project used an incentive based approach to land protection; conservation easements are one example of a voluntary tool that can be used to protect natural areas in Dakota County. Finding The County has an opportunity to leverage local dollars to obtain funding from other Federal, State and metro agencies that support natural area protection. Findin Through an extensive citizen participation process, high priority natural areas were identified with the following characteristics: a) Lands of biological significance b) Lands adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams c) Land buffers and best management practices for water quality d) Lands that provides wildlife habitat e) Lands that provides some level of public access raft for Discussion Purposes O yy Finding The public purpose for protecting natural areas include: a) Natural areas increase adjacent property values and enhance the appeal of neighborhoods. b) Provide connections between communities and neighborhoods. c) Provide critical habitat for animals and plants, and pathways for animals to move between their breeding and feeding areas. d) Provide environmental services, including: filtering pollutants from soil and water, and reducing soil erosion. Natural vegetation absorbs air pollutants and carbon dioxide e) Provide natural flood control for area streams and rivers by retaining vegetated corridors to absorb flood waters Recommended Farmland Protection Strategies F-1 Protect productive farmland in contiguous blocks next to natural corridors using conservation easements from willing sellers. F-2 Promote the use and enhancement of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program. F-3 Assist communities with local growth management controls to guide development away from priority farmland using subdivision ordinances and transfer of development rights. Recommended Natural Area Protection Strategies N-1 Protect priority natural areas in corridors using conservation easements and fee title acquisition from willing sellers and donors. N-2 Work with other agencies through their programs to protect County priority natural areas. N-3 Work with large land owners and agencies to protect natural areas on their properties with conservation easements and natural resource management plans. viii Chapter 1: What is the problem and who cares? Rapid growth Dakota County has been and will continue to be one of the fastest growing Counties in the Midwest. The Twin Cities regional economy has been strong and the Metropolitan Council projects that approximately 480,000 more people will live in this region by the year 2020. About 100,000 of these additional people will live in Dakota County. Citizen concern over loss of farmland and natural areas In light of Dakota County's rapid growth, polls strongly suggest widespread concern over the loss of farmland and natural areas. In fact only 2%-3% of Dakota County's original natural areas remain. Many of these natural areas contain rare and endangered plant and animal species that would likely be destroyed as a result of development. Agricultural lands are being converted to residential and commercial areas at a rate of 2000-3000 acres per year. Some of these lands are very productive soils that have been farmed by the same families for generations. Maintaining the qualify of life in Dakota County Throughout this project, the County's citizens have indicated that the preservation and protection of existing and future open space is important to maintaining the quality of life in Dakota County, Dakota County's growth rate in the 1990's was 8,000 people per year. Each year, over 3,000 housing units are added fo Dakota County. Lakeville will be the largest city in the County by 2020 with a population of 72,000 people. Impact of land use change on natural resources at Cliff Road and Pilot Knob in Eagan These aerial photos illustrate the change on the landscape that is typical of suburban Dakota County. In this example, the lands around Thomas Lake have been preserved as a natural passive open space park. 1945 1987 Impact of land use change on farmland in Nininger Township The side -by -side photos below show suburban housing encroaching on a farm in Nininger township. The approaching houses mean change for the land and the people that live in these areas. If the farm remains, higher taxes, nuisance complaints, and land use conflicts will increase as it is surrounded by homes. The challenge of this plan is to balance the need to provide housing for the growing metropolitan area, with the desire to preserve farmland and rural character, Loss of natural areas Pre -settlement Vegetation The Marschner map (figure) r ,, shows the patterns of pre- settlement vegetation in Dakota County. Dakota County's original b . landscape has been substantially altered by farming and land development. The County's rich soils and proximity to Minneapolis St. Paul have meant that between farming practices and development pressures, very few,,..L; f = # of the County's original wetlands, a i qp , prairies, upland forests, and F;. savannas remain. J }� High Quality Natural Areas Toda In Contrast, the Minnesota County Biologic Survey rnap shows the few high quality natural areas that remain (figure). Many of these areas are not currently protected. The more fragmented these natural areas become, the harder it is for natural communities to function. If these areas are not protected, they will not exist for future generations, 3 s�� i��a Hiph Quality NaWral firsas 4o 1 t Ld a ,., t r1 Impact of growth on farmland and natural area resources Population growth and land use change is a part of any growing metropolitan area. But how that growth occurs, can have a major impact on farms and natural areas. In order to have stable agricultural areas in the County, farms need to be located next to farms. Too much rural residential development can lead to land use conflict and instability in the farm economy. Similarly, natural areas need to function as systems to remain healthy. This means that natural areas need to be next to each other to allow animals to move within their habitat and survive. Approximately 2000-3000 acres of farmland are converted to houses each year in Dakota County 80-90% of the wetlands in the County have been filled or drained 2%-3% of the County's original natural areas remain 0 Support for land protection Citizen Surveys Citizen surveys indicate that Dakota County's residents are concerned about the loss of farmland and natural areas. Dakota County has conducted telephone surveys in 1997, 1999, and 2001 all with similar results. The surveys have also indicated significant support for conserving and protection farmland and remaining natural areas. Here are some of the responses from the 2001 Citizen survey: vary,m,or,ar How important is it that Dako#a County ss% pursue an active role in protecting lakes, streams, and wetlands? somewhat imvonanc za% Not too important 2% 0% ant' How important is it that Dakota County pursue an active role in protecting farmland from development? an, How important is it that Dakota County pursue an active role in protecting remaining natural areas? Dakota County citizens are concerned about the loss of farmland and natural areas, but are they concerned to the point that they would pay additional dollars to protect these areas? In February of 2000, a financing survey of Dakota County voters was conducted to learn whether there was enough support among citizens to pay for a farmland and natural area program. The entire survey can be found at the end of this document (figure), but the answers to these two questions give the best indication of people's willingness to pay. Willingness to pay for land protection (Source: Financing Options Survey) Generally speaking do you feel that Dakota County should or should not have an ongoing program designed to purchase and protect natural areas and farmlands? 69% Strongly —should 18% Not strongly — should 4% Not strongly — should not Should 6% Strongly — should not 86 2% Depends 3% Don't know Should Not to Would you vote for or against an annual property tax increase that would cost $9.65 per $100,000 of home value and would raise about $2 million per year for the purpose of purchasing and protecting natural areas and farmland in your county? 34% Definitely for 32% Probably for 11 % Probably against 18% Definitely against 4% Don't know 1 % Refused ro�a� Fo, 66% The results of the financing options survey suggest that County residents would be willing to pay to protect farmland and natural areas within limits. It is clear that while there is an interest in paying additional dollars for land protection, that dollar amount is probably less than $20 annually per $100,000 of home value. Moving forward Dakota County's productive farmland and high value natural areas are both threatened by development. As part of this project, these land areas have been inventoried, evaluated, and prioritized. The real question for Dakota County's citizens is how to protect the open spaces that they say that they want to protect, and what will be the future for farmland and natural areas in Dakota County? Chapter 2 - Farmland The Resource, Threat, and Opportunities to Protect Farmland as a Resource Farming is part of the heritage of Dakota County. Since the 1850's, generations of farmers have tilled Dakota County's fertile soils to produce food for their families, the region, and the world. Dakota County agriculture today consists primarily of corn, soybeans and livestock; but also includes wheat, alfalfa, hay, horse ranches, sod farms, nurseries, vegetables, and farm market produce. While many farming practices have changed overtime, Dakota County continues to be a source of fresh food for people in the Twin Cities metro area. The 1997 Agricultural Census reported that there were about 221,000 acres of land in agricultural production. This is about 60% of the land area of Dakota County. In 1950, about 85% (about 316,000 acres) of the land was in agricultural production. In the 1990s, farmland was developed at about 2,000 — 3000 acres per year. Dakota County has 221,000 acres of land in, agricultural production There are 890 farms in Dakota County The average farm is 249 acres The total market value of agricultural products sold in 1997 was $103 million About 19% of farmland is irrigated 202,000 acres (91%) of Dakota County farmland is zoned 1 house per 40 acre maximum density Dakota County's agricultural lands (outside of the 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary (MUSA) are shown on the map below: waw r.+++r mau.eur =fir 1 t5RYII Att[3) 3 � .avraa rrr I i 3 � ;i ,YSSiI ;WLA;vP yes rwn u c ipw�aa _ K.n i . •i'r VI J$Prey" l,dw, cwmarTSn ; �Xts2lrog Rttrai RastUenUa! ■ �• qm lift I! 4 6111C! L3p i ijiQ Farm related businesses In addition to the farms themselves, there are many businesses in Dakota County that are dependent upon agriculture for their sales or purchases. These businesses include: • Agricultural services • Processing of food and kindred products (meat, dairy, grain, fruits and vegetables) • Farm and garden machinery • Farm product raw material • Farm supplies Together, the farms and related businesses represent a total economic impact of agriculture on the County's economy. A 1995 study of the agricultural economy n Dakota County, indicated that the combined impact of farms and farm related businesses exceeded $430,000,000, which is 4.77% of the County's total economy and consisting of between 4405 and 5397 employees. I�7 Analyzing the Threat to Farmland and Farming Vast, [JUL threatened farmland The tremendous amount of farmland in Dakota County is both an opportunity and a challenge. Historically, the cities in Dakota County have looked to agricultural land as a land supply for development. Local plans and zoning have been changed from agricultural to urban land uses Dynamics of impending urbanization Zoning density change to more than 1 unit per 20 acres Higher density residential development breaks up the contiguous agricultural land areas and can restrict farmers' operations. Complaints about noise, odor, and dust are more likely. As a result, there is decreased political support for keeping agricultural protections (such as zoning and Agricultural Preserves Program) Demand by non -farm residents to have urban services in rural areas When non -farm residences are built in agricultural areas, the demand for paved roads, new schools, parks, and other services increases. If the community decides to provide these services, the cost is passed back to all landowners, including farmers with extensive land holdings. Speculation on agricultural land for development purposes This leads to higher land prices that can price farmers out of the market. High land prices can prevent the transfer of these farms to other farmers in the family or in the community. Belief that farming will not remain as the primary occupation in the community Sometimes referred to as the "impermanence syndrome", farmers in urbanizing areas reduce their expenditure for maintenance of land and buildings, do not make new farming investments, and tend to sell for development. In addition, heirs are uncertain about continuing the family farm operation since agriculture is no longer the defining character of the community. II Transition point from farm to non -farm communities National experts have said that the end result of these urbanization dynamics is that the agricultural community would be transformed into a non-agricultural community. This transition point generally occurs when about 15% to 20% of the land in the community is not engaged in agricultural uses. The year by year addition of non -farm residences within the townships, which seem inconsequential at the time of their approval, can have a cumulative impact that results in the loss of long term agriculture in the community. Analyzing the threats to farmland in Dakota County Traditionally, agriculture has been a transitional land use that has been phased out to make room for the growing suburbs in the County. While most of this growth has occurred in suburban communities in a planned and orderly way, rural residential development in the townships threatens agricultural areas. It is this farmland outside of the 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (lands where city sewer and water are planned) that is the focus of farmland protection in this planning process. Since 1980, the townships in Dakota County have protected agriculture through policies in their local comprehensive plans and with zoning ordinances (a maximum density of 1 house per 40 acres). These regulatory policies and controls have established agriculture as the primary land use in rural areas and have restricted residential development. While agricultural zoning has been effective in communities that have planned to have farming and have low levels of development pressure, it has been ineffective in communities with high development pressure. These communities have changed their local plans in response to allow rural residential development. Current planning and zoning is unable to permanently protect farming and farmland when it is threatened by urban annexation or by rural residential development. In some cases cities and townships reach an agreement on how to allow orderly annexation; in other cases townships want to prevent annexation, but are unsuccessful. Rural residential development that is mixed in with farming areas results in land use conflicts. The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan "DC 2020" includes a goal to "support and encourage orderly development." As a result of this goal, this project does not consider the long term protection of farmland in future urban areas (with the exception of specialty produce farms). 12 Analyzing what is needed to make farming work in Dakota County Farming as a business, is influenced by land productivity, economics, community support, and government programs. Land Productivity Productive soils are key to any successful farming area. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, prime farmland is defined as the land best suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oil seed crops. When managed according to acceptable farming methods, prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce a sustained high yield of crops. Soils that have limitations (high water table, flooding, or inadequate rainfall) may qualify as prime farmland if these limitations are overcome by measures such as drainage, flood control, or irrigation. The vast majority of the farmland is high quality productive farmland. Economics In simple terms, a viable farm is an operation that makes more money selling farm products than what it costs to produce those products. At a more complex level, international markets, new technology, multi -national agri-businesses, and government price supports for commodities all play a major role in farm economics. At the local level, there also factors that influence farm economics. Local factors include; a) land prices, b) demand for land for urban development, c) investment in the farm operation, and d) rural residential development that can impede normal farming practices. This plan addresses local economic factors. (note: Dakota County's 103 million dollars in total market value of agricultural products sold in 1997 is an indication of the County's farm economy). Community Support Communities can support farming through local plans and zoning ordinances that encourage agriculture and direct non -farm land uses outside of farming areas. In Dakota County, 12 of 13 townships have plans that support agriculture as a long-term land use. The majority of land in these 12 townships is zoned agricultural but allows residential development at a density of 1 housing unit per 40 acres. These communities have also adopted "right to farm' ordinances that limit nuisance complaints about normal farming practices. 13 Government Programs Federal government price support programs can be an important factor in the viability of Dakota County farms. This plan does not address these programs. State and regional programs, such as Metro Agriculture Preserves and Green Acres, can help reduce development pressure on farming operations. The Metro Ag. Preserve program is the more effective of the two programs at protecting long term agriculture. The consistency between regional programs and local planning for agriculture is also a critical element of effective farmland protection. The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint contains a regional growth strategy for the 7 county region. As part of their policies for orderly growth, a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) has been defined for growing urban communities. The MUSA line can be extended and impact farmland on the edge of growing communities. In Dakota County, the MUSA line has been projected out to 2040, largely within the communities of Lakeville, Farmington, Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, and Hastings. The rate and location of the MUSA expansion can be critical to farms on the edge of the growing metropolitan area and affect the level of investment in the farm. r O AiOA VIWU tq'Or�inJ.ry �ta�n�ryNow.rory 14 Opportunities to Protect Farmland and Farming Public purpose for protecting farmland There are many reasons why people in Dakota County want to protect farmland. Some are economic, others are based in the kind of community that people want to live in. A few examples of the public purpose for protecting farmland are: a) Protect productive agricultural land as a natural resource b) Maintain tax paying open space on productive land c) Support an important industry in rural Dakota County d) Preserve rural character and quality of life as desired by the County's citizens e) Protect the 100 million dollar farm sales economy f) Promote a land use that generates more taxes than service costs g) Protect a source of fresh farm products adjacent to the metro area Responding to challenges As described above, the challenges of protecting farmland are different from the challenges of protecting natural areas. Farmland is relatively inexpensive (outside of the cities) but expansive. Natural areas are few and far between but are often some of the most expensive land in the County. Our challenge in this pIan is to protect the integrity of those resources in a manner that is technically feasible and practically affordable. National experts recommend the following controls to make a farmland protection program successful: • Comprehensive Plans • Differential assessment of farmland (e.g. based on agricultural value, not market value) • Agricultural districts (e.g. Metro Ag. Preserves Program) • Right -to -Farm ordinance (Dakota County Townships have adopted these) • Agricultural zoning ( limits non -farm development) • Urban growth boundaries (e.g. MUSA) • PDR/TDR ordinances All of these tools except PDR and TDR are being used in Dakota County. A combination of regulatory and incentive based (voluntary) tools are considered most effective at permanently protecting land. For example, for farmland to qualify for the Agricultural Preserve Program (an incentive based tool) it must be identified as long-term agricultural use in the local comprehensive plan, and have 1/40 agricultural zoning density. 15 An incentive based approach to land protection V this project's conception, the goal was to take an incentive based approach to farmland protection. 1) Conservation Easements from willing sellers (PDR, TDR) 3) Voluntary enrollment in the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve Program 4) Voluntary enrollment in agency cost share programs (RIM, CRP, WRP) Conservation easements are new to Dakota County and Minnesota A relatively new tool known as the conservation easement offers an alternative to regulatory control and can be used to protect farmland. Conservation easements are voluntary easements that give the holder the right to prevent certain uses (e.g. residential development). The landowner retains all remaining rights to use their property. They can and have been used around the country to protect farmland and natural areas. They provide resource protection on privately owned land and the land remains on the tax rolls. The conservation easements that are used to protect farmland are different than conservation easements that are written to protect natural areas. Conservation easements written for farmland are structured so that the land can remain in agricultural production yet prohibits development of the property. The Financing option survey indicated that nearly N of Dakota County residents are unfamiliar with conservation easements. Nationally, however, hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland have been protected using permanent conservation easements in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and many other states. In Pennsylvania, the statewide average cost for conservation easements has been $2,000 per acre. These programs have been funded by real estate transfer tax, bond referendum, lottery proceeds, state general fund, cigarette tax, and the Federal Farmland Protection Program. A local program must be established to access this Federal funding. While conservation easements have been allowed in Minnesota for many years, it was only in 1997 that the State Legislature provided enabling legislation to allow local government to use purchase of development rights and transfer of development rights. However, there are not any state-wide or metro area programs that provide matching funding for permanent conservation easements for working farms at this time. A proposal to create a 2 million dollar metro match for to fund conservation easements was defeated in the 2001 session of the legislature. Narrowing down what lands to protect and where: Farmland In a series of meetings held in February 2000, more than 200 citizens worked in small groups to identify areas of priority farmland. Citizens identified entire townships of farmland for protection, in part due to the fact that the majority of farmland in Dakota County is of high quality. 16 In other parts of the nation, successful programs have targeted preserving as many farming operations as possible in large contiguous blocks. The contiguous block strategy is based on restricting non -farm development as much as possible to reduce land use conflicts and nuisance complaints that are obstacles to normal farm practices. In June of 2000, a panel of national experts met with citizens, farmers, elected officials, and project partners to describe successful programs and how they have been funded and implemented. They recommended that local communities need to protect a critical mass of farmland (minimum 50,000 acres) to have a sustainable farm economy. They also recommended that local communities use a variety of tools that are tailored to local land protection needs. Opportunities to protect farmland conservation easements In a strategy workshop, national experts proposed several scenarios that could work in Dakota County. The scenarios were based on the following approaches: 1) Protect farmland in a continuous buffer adjacent to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) 2) Protect the most productive farmland in contiguous blocks (represented by enrollment in the Metropolitan Ag. Preserves Program) 3) Protect farmland adjacent to natural areas. Assumptions of three conservation easement protection scenarios: All three land protection scenarios assumed the following: • 1 Million Dollar Annual Program (assumes 2 million dollars from Financing Options Survey split'/2 for farmland and natural areas • Land Identified as Ag. In Local, County Metro Council Plans • Urban Farming (Orchards, Nurseries, Vegetables, Berry patches, Farm Markets) treated as "Open Space" • All three land protection scenarios use purchase of conservation easements. Each scenario was evaluated with regard to its effectiveness at protecting farmland, cost to implement, long term implications for development, and County- wide public benefit. The following maps and tables illustrate how conservation easements could be used to protect farmland in Dakota County. 17 Purminnrt !'nne [Minn Srandriu 1: wt C.� . (i.Mru.lreu Lr a .i'r.:p rf.ihrrulurnrl Lund r Tt cif i +�'r A ry i:d� t Id immj �., ' r '- r8 I Im IV (.dVV III -! I MVI dmjVVm S 9 } - mrxIm: rid d �l Buffer Scenario Cons •Appears to create a clear separation between •Expensive land urban and rural areas •Voluntary participation means gaps in boundary •Wouldn't stop rural residential growth *Long term implications of permanent buffer 18 FarnJund Prereovruion Seen rvio :: Jt�mlars Most Productive Contiguous Farmland Pros Cons •Most fertile soils preserved •"Pure" farmland protection may not have •Most dedicated farmers enroll popular support of all residents •Lower cost to implement •Does not consider locations of natural areas •Long term implications of permanent farmland Iurn8unrl Prrrrrvotlon Scrnnrlo 3: Y e+rdoo.�F nw.rd,ayxrart re Vau.aJAnw il J 1 xri I { jFINAL z t 4 y 7P� NIL YN, 3 lYL r k1 {IN I A IN Yc �NLL jIN y IN IF IN ;. t ' 1 i - IN xi I xr� i il 11 IN Ire, IN INN,x } - Farmland Next to Natural Areas Pros Cons •Farmland and natural area protection has •Not all farms are adjacent to natural areas mutual benefits *Farm practices not always compatible with •Permanent farmland protection could become natural areas "open space" in future •Farmland protection cannot be scattered but *Conservation farming could be requirement of must be in large blocks participation 20 Development of farmland protection strategies As a result of public comment and discussion at 6 public meetings, the majority viewpoint was to combine the best elements from each scenario into a "hybrid" conservation easement scenario. The "hybrid" scenario incorporates; soil productivity, local/regional plans, wildlife habitat, water quality, and future use into a farmland protection strategy. Using these criteria, approximately 42,000 acres of priority farmland were identified and are shown in dark green on the map below. Strategy F1: Protect productive farmland in contiguous blocks next to natural corridors using conservation easements from willing sellers Outcomes: • Protects highly productive soils outside of 2040 MUSA in 1/40 zoning districts, enrolled in Ag. Preserve) • Conserves the land for water quality (best management practices required) • Provides additional wildlife habitat adjacent to natural areas • Flexible use in future as either farmland or open space (future generations have options) hybrid harnelana Prntrown Scrxvnu jAID It, It ., i, le elL Mil ere t f, flit le .. `y 21 Investigation of Agricultural Protection Incentive Programs There are two programs available to Dakota County farmers that provide incentives to keep land in agricultural use; "Green Acres' and "Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves". A third program, the Conservation Reserve Program, is a land retirement program that is not evaluated in this chapter as an agricultural protection program. Dakota CounV, Agricultural Presrnwtion Zir.Ji.?Aitikwt'Of l P",.I.'r.3n A<•p+•••.• ff t Ott A A o0� 1 _ I ;'. t �: idil a::trl txuatz-1 22 Green Acres The "Green Acres" program is a statewide program that provides for deferment of assessment and taxes payable on farmlands whose valuations have been increased due to residential or commercial development potential. For land parcels of 10 acres or more, property owners who are engaged in agricultural can apply for deferment of higher valuations and higher taxes payable, including special assessments, and continue to have the property valued on the basis of its farm purposes. In addition, the owner must be able to verify a minimum gross annual income of $300 plus $10 per tillable acre. The program does not require any covenants on the land, nor does it require that agricultural zoning must be in place. Dakota County landowners have 115,900 acres enrolled in the Green Acres Program. While many landowners are in green acres with the intention of long- term farming, the Green Acres program is attractive to land speculators. • Offers temporary protection for land owners who cannot meet the qualifications for Ag. Preserves program. • Offers tax relief Cons • Not tied to local planning and zoning • Can.be used by land speculators and hobby farmers to reduce taxes Require minimum acreage and No long term commitment by the agricultural production to promote land owners farming • Does not offer protection against assessments. • Not an effective long-term farmland protection tool 23 Agricultural Preserves The Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program provides a package of benefits to enable farmers near urban areas to continue farming on equal footing with farmers located outside the metropolitan area. The intent of the law is to: • Preserve important agricultural an in the metro area from competing land uses, • Protect the local agricultural economy and support businesses • Promote orderly and planned growth and development of urban and rural land uses • Allow farmers to make long term agricultural investments with the assurance that their land can continue in agricultural use without interference from urban pressures. In order for landowners to enroll, local governments have to identify areas where agriculture is to be preserved. Landowners receive property tax credits and additional benefits by placing a restrictive covenant on their land (minimum of 8 years), limiting its use to agriculture or forestry. Farmers in the agricultural preserve program are protected from urban assessments, and pay taxes based on the farmland value of their property. Pros � Cons • Farmland is valued at its "agricultural value"for tax purposes • Land cannot be assessed for urban improvements (sewer, water, and roads for urban expansion) • Landowners enroll for at least 8 years, providing some certainty about the short-term future of agriculture • Program is coordinated with local planning and zoning • Voluntary Program 24 • Does not protect land permanently • Farmers still may need to pay higher tax rates even though their land is taxed at its agricultural value • Tax credit is relatively small ($1.50 per acre) • Term of enrollment is relatively short (8 year) In 1999, Dakota County farmers enrolled 60,810 acres of land in Agricultural Preserves out of an eligible 202,386 acres. In 2000, 64,823 acres were enrolled. In other words, about 30% of all land eligible to be enrolled in Agricultural Preserves has been enrolled. Of the 60,258 acres enrolled, 29,177 have filed an expiration date to come out of the program (or potentially re -enroll) within 8 years. The following table summarizes year 2000 enrollment by city and township. DAKOTA COUNTY 1999 acres Enrolled 2000 acres Enrolled Amount Changed Castle Rock Township 3,366 3,519 153 Douglas Township Empire Township 9,286 5,714 9,482 5,636 196 -78 Eureka Township 4,569 4,639 70 Farmington 1,424 15439 15 Greenvale Township 3,798 407 289 Hampton 75 100 100 Hampton Township Lakeville 51484 299 61494 259 1,010 -40 Marshan Township 6,288 6,797 509 New Trier 0 2 2 Nininger Township1,264 Randol h Townshi 555 1,025 686 31 kE-239 Ravenna Township 1,147 1,242 95 Rosemount 1,844 1,730 14 Sciota Township2,499 2,682 183 Vermillion Township 10,241 12,079 1,838 Waterford Township 2,957 2,925 -32 TOTAL 60,810 64,823 49013 Recommendations from Agricultural Program Studies Ih'1999, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Metropolitan Council produced.a study titled "Evaluation of Minnesota Agricultural Land Preservation Programs". The study concluded that the Metropolitan Ag. Preserve Program was an effective approach to protecting farmland. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture recommends an increase in the minim credit per acre to $3,00 and a subsequent increase in the transaction fee to $17.00 to increase enrollment in the program. Strategy F2: Promote the use and enhancement of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program Outcomes: • Reduces uncertainty and encourages farm investment • Sends signal about land expectations/land use • Means to implement local plans/policies • Reinforces 1/40 zoning • Protects individual farmers from urban assessments • Tax incentives encourage continued agricultural use Opportunities to assist cities and townships with local controls and incentives The focus of this project was to investigate incentives and voluntary tools as a means to farmland protection as opposed to focusing on the use of regulatory tools. However, many regulatory tools can be modified to provide landowners with incentives to protect farmland. For example, in other areas transfer of development rights programs are used to provide density bonuses to landowners that direct development away from productive farmland. Clustering is another technique that provides landowners with flexible zoning and density incentives to group houses on the edge of fields or away from farming areas. Similarly, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District is working on an initiative called "Low Impact Development' that offers technical assistance to landowners and cities and townships that want to accommodate development, yet reduce impacts to land and water resources. While Dakota County does not have regulatory land use authority, the County can work with cities and townships to accomplish farmland protection goals by providing technical assistance and helping to modifying local controls to offer landowners incentives to protect priority farmland. Strategy F3: Assist communities with local growth management controls to guide development away from priority farmland using subdivision ordinances and transfer of development rights. Outcomes • Communities protect priority resources while still allowing development according to local plans • Land use conflicts are reduced • Fiscal impacts and demand for services are reduced 26 Chapter 3 - Natural Areas The Resource, Threat, and Opportunities to Protect Natural Areas as a Resource Dakota County's distinctive natural areas include a mixture of forest, prairie, wetlands, major rivers, blufflands, and trout streams, which provide habitat for wildlife and open spaces for people to enjoy. Overview of natural areas While Dakota County does not have many of its original natural areas, those that remain are highly valued by the County's citizens. Some of these areas are pristine natural communities that contain rare and endangered plant and animal species. Other natural areas are degraded, yet still have value as scenic open spaces that provide habitat to common animals such as deer, pheasants, waterfowl, and song birds. Whether environmentally pristine, or valued because of their open space qualities, Dakota County's citizens have responded, through surveys and through participation at public meetings, that they would like to protect some of these areas for today and for future generations. Tour of Dakota County's "priority" remaining natural areas The following pictures and descriptions of Dakota County's "priority" natural areas represent the places repeatedly identified by citizens at public meetings. These areas were identified by people on maps, through pictures, and from evaluation forms as opportunities for land protection. While there are other areas that have been identified, these areas constitute the County's "Most Wanted" natural areas. A more analytical summary of all natural areas in the County follows this photo tour. 27 Marcott Lakes (Undeveloped Lakeshore) Scenic undeveloped lakeshore is rare in a metropolitan area and was identified by citizens as important land to protect. These pictures from the Marcott Lakes area of Inver Grove Heights show the scenic beauty of lakes, wetlands, and uplands wetlands in an area that is platted but has not at been developed. This land is also identified on the County Biologic Survey as a pristine natural community. 28 Northern Rosemount Area Lakes and Woods The rolling hills, lakes, and wetlands in northern Rosemount are typical of many of the areas of northern Dakota County that have already been developed. The beauty of this landscape is what has attracted many residents to Dakota County over the past several decades. While some of this landscape has been protected as part of Lebanon Hills Regional Park, many other areas are now candidates for development. 3l Southern Inver Grove Heights ("Cliff Woods and Koch Refining Buffer Area) The rolling woods and fields in southern Inver Grove Heights were identified repeatedly by citizens that enjoy the open space and character of this landscape. There are several large landowners in this area that use these lands as "buffer"property for their industrial operations. The lands are not currently protected. 33 Threats to Natural Areas Analyzing what is needed to make natural areas sustainable According to ecologists, healthy natural areas are in fact natural systems. They contain a diversity of plant and animal species. Natural areas need to be large and/or connected to provide habitat for animals and to allow natural systems to function. While it may not be possible to restore natural areas to what they were, it is important to know how these systems work so that people can make informed decisions about their protection, restoration, and management. The strategy of most resource protection agencies has been to protect large enough natural areas (typically 10 acres or more) to provide wildlife habitat and to connect these areas to other natural areas whenever possible. The pattern of development can also have a major impact on natural systems. In other words, if the same amount of isolated fragmented natural areas is far less valuable for wildlife habitat than that same amount of land if it can be connected or protected as larger parcels. Analyzing the threats to natural areas Many of Dakota County's remaining natural areas are candidates for residential development. They are often lands with amenities such as lakeshore, rivers and streams, mature woods, or scenic views, making them desirable for development. Obviously, these are the same qualities that make these lands desirable to preserve. While each situation is unique, these lands remain undeveloped for one or more of the following reasons: 1) All or a portion of the site is protected by zoning ordinances that limits development keg. floodplain, shore land, wetlands, steep slopes) 2) Landowners are waiting for the right price before selling the property. 3) Landowners are holding the property until some time into the future and plan to develop it themselves or for a family member. 4) Conservation -minded landowners desire to leave the land in its natural state. Protection using existing tools While zoning can provide some form of protection for the most sensitive (ands, zoning cannot be used to deny landowners reasonable use of their property. In this County, and in Minnesota in general, natural areas have been protected through park dedication and public acquisition. Although this can be an effective tool, it is also an expensive one. Public acquisition costs are threefold. They include; acquisition costs, purchase price, operations and maintenance of property, and loss of tax revenue. Of course, there are many public benefits associated with land acquisition that include: public recreation, clean water, wildlife habitat, and amenities that people like to either visit or live next to. 37 Opportunities to Protect Natural Areas Public purpose of protecting natural areas a) Increase adjacent property values and enhance the appeal of neighborhoods. b) Provide connections between communities and neighborhoods. c) Provide critical habitat for animals and plants, and pathways for animals to move between their breeding and feeding areas. d) Provide environmental services, including: filtering pollutants from soil and water, and reducing soil erosion. Natural vegetation absorbs air pollutants and carbon dioxide. e) Provide natural flood control for area streams and rivers by retaining vegetated corridors to absorb flood waters. Responding to challenges As described above, the challenges of protecting farmland are different from the challenges of protecting natural areas. Farmland is relatively inexpensive (outside of the cities) but expansive. Natural areas are few and far between but are often some of the most expensive land in the County. Our challenge in this plan is to protect the integrity of those resources in a manner that is technically feasible and practically affordable. An incentive based approach to land protection At this project's conception, the goal was to take an incentive -based approach to land protection. 1) Conservation Easements from willing sellers and donors 2) Acquisition of fee title from willing sellers and donors 3) Voluntary enrollment in natural resource agency cost share programs (RIM, CRP, WRP) 38 Conservation easements are new to Dakota County and Minnesota A relatively new tool known as the conservation easement offers an alternative to regulatory control. Conservation easements are voluntary agreements that give the holder the right to prevent certain uses (e.g. residential development). The landowner retains all remaining rights to use their property. They can and have been used around the country to protect farmland and natural areas. They provide resource protection on privately owned land and the land remains on the tax rolls. These are permanent easements that are placed on the property deed through voluntary agreement and are transferred to subsequent property owners at the time of property sale. Conservation easements can either be donated or are sometimes purchased by government agencies from willing sellers. Conservation easements on natural areas are written agreements tailored to the protection of the natural resources on individual pieces of property. Some examples of conservation easement use in Minnesota: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Proaram (CREP). This program was created to retire marginal agricultural lands in the Minnesota River watershed to reduce soil erosion and runoff. Willing landowners are paid to place a permanent conservation easement on their land, thereby improving water quality and creating wildlife habitat. Minnesota dollars are matched 2/1 with Federal dollars. The goal is to protect 100,000 acres in the watershed. Minnesota Land Trust. The Minnesota Land Trust has worked with landowners and local governments to protect 16,500 acres on 175 properties throughout Minnesota (as of 12/31/2000) using permanent conservation easements. Examples of conservation easements in Dakota County • Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy holds a conservation easement on land in Burnsville that is managed with the DNR as a Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) Use of Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Dakota County farmers are participating in the RIM program that permanently retires marginal agricultural land using conservation easements. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) The CRP program is a term easement program that pays landowners to hold agricultural land out of production. Over 5000 acres of land in Dakota County are enrolled in CRP, but the land is not permanently protected. 39 The Financing option survey indicated that nearly ''/< of Dakota County residents are unfamiliar with conservation easements. Nationally, however, over 1.3 million acres have been protected using conservation easements held by land trusts. Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Conservation Easements to Protect Natural Areas Conservation easements provide a means to protect natural areas that can be very attractive to landowners and citizens. Landowners are able to retain control of their property, yet permanently protect a natural resource that they may believe is important. Since the development value of the property has been retired concurrent with creation of the conservation easement, they will often pay lower taxes to reflect the limited use of their property. The value of conservation easements to citizens is that they can protect natural resources without the full cost of purchasing the property, maintaining the property, and removing private land from the tax roles. Conservation easements have been used in other parts of the country to preserve rural character, retain scenic views, protect wildlife habitat, manage surface water, and protect groundwater. The disadvantage of using conservation easements is that the land remains In private ownership and may not have public access. Since the land is not accessible to the public, the public may not always support the use of public funds for conservation easements on private land. Dakota County Citizen Perspectives on the Use of Conservation Easements At County -wide meetings, citizens were asked to consider the use of conservation easements as a land protection tool. People at the meetings were asked to comment on the following land protection approaches: 1) Protect remaining natural areas on private lands with conservation easements even if there is no public access. 2) Protect natural areas on private lands with conservation easements provided that there is some public access (adjacent public land, public trail easement, fishing easement) 3) Protect natural areas by purchasing land for public ownership (parks). Public opinion was varied, but the majority of people that attended the meetings favored a mix of private land protection and public access. This has been accomplished in other land protection programs by giving preference to landowners that are willing to provide some level of public access, or through a selection process that gives priority to private lands that are adjacent to publicly protected lands that have trails, parks, or other public access. Narrowing down what lands to protect and where: Natural Areas In a series of meetings held in February of 2000, more than 200 citizens worked in small groups to identify areas on maps that they believed should be evaluated for protection. As a result of the meetings, 40 maps were created using magic markers to identify important areas. Staff at the Dakota County Office of Planning took these separate maps and combined them to create the "citizen map" depicted in the figure below. At the same time, the Dakota County Soil anc Water Conservation District (SWCD) mapped and analyzed the land cover throughout the County. The "land cover map" below is the result of that mapping effort. The objective of mapping the natural areas in detail was to respond to citizen interests and use biological data to evaluate the quality of remaining natural communities in the preference areas. The final step in the landcover analysis was to identify which of these natural areas were already protected because they were publicly owned and which natural areas were still privately owned. Origins of the Natural Corridor Map Citizen Map Land cover map (example of detail) t ,,,, kk JVAAt A.„ .. 'yam a � A A .� I r As a result of information gathered from public meetings and surveys, citizens were interested in protecting land with the following characteristics: • Lands of biological significance • Lands adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams • Land buffers and best management practices for water quality • Lands that provide wildlife habitat • Lands that provide some level of public access Natural corridors approach As described earlier, natural area experts advise that there are far more benefits gained from protecting connected natural areas than can be achieved protecting isolated and fragmented land. Connected habitat provides corridors for the movement of wildlife and can enhance surface water quality when located next to lakes, rivers, and streams. Natural corridors are privately or publicly owned corridors of open space that often follow natural land or water features, managed primarily to protect and enhance natural resources. The "natural corridors" approach has been used to achieve these results throughout the nation. The benefits of using a natural corridors approach in Dakota County area as follows: • When situated along rivers and streams, natural corridors protect water quality by filtering out and holding nutrients, sediments, and chemicals. They can provide natural flood control for area streams and rivers by retaining vegetated corridors to absorb flood waters. • Corridors maximize the natural resources of an area by providing habitats for diverse plant and animal species. • They provide important connections between high quality natural areas, which animals and plants use to move through the landscape to the habitats they depend on. • They can be a good economic value for county residents because corridors can be established, on a voluntary basis, on private land. This can be cheaper than the outright purchase of land. • Natural corridors can soften urban and suburban landscapes with ribbons of green that improve the quality of life and enhance property values. • They can help local communities direct development and growth away from important natural resource areas. • Communities with protected natural corridors are more attractive to new and existing businesses. 42 Three natural area protection strategies for Dakota County Three strategies have been created to address natural area protection in Dakota County. The basis for the strategies is a natural corridors approach that uses incentive based tools in cooperation with other agencies and landowners to protect priority natural areas. The following composite map illustrates how natural areas were initially identified by citizens, mapped in detail by the Soil and Water Conservation District, and then prioritized by citizens at public meetings. In the graphic below, the large map on the right contains about 36,000 acres of privately owned natural areas within priority corridors. III Ft IF IF It IF w F1 IFINIF FIX j �'��' -` I(yLL'�•� r t wiT� � }TM'� .>--lj+�;42r,.. YFA [-� 0. 1✓ r= �.—�,.`^;n 'u emu` i -'a _ 4 FIA ` t IN 1 /` _-- IF >� I in MOP FIFF Strategy N9: "Profect priority natural areas in corridors using conservation easements and fee Title acquisition from willing sellers and donors Outcomes: • Improve water quality by buffering lakes, streams, and rivers from runoff • Protect and connect habitat to allow the movement of wildlife • Tap into public/private funding opportunities • Provide the opportunity for recreation (now or in the future) 43 Opportunities to coordinate with other agencies on land protection There are many opportunities to work with other agencies toward land protection in Dakota County. These agencies include; MN Department of Natural Resources, local watershed management organizations, National Resource Conservation Service, National Parks/MNRRA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers. Each of these agencies has its own programs targeted toward different types of resource protection. The county -wide natural areas map shows lands that have already been protected by other agencies (see figure). While the nature of these programs fluctuate over time and between political administrations, they certainly provide opportunities to match local dollars with outside funding. At an agency meeting in November of 2000, representatives from each agency described their programs and land protection goals. any of these programs target areas that Dakota County's citizens identified as priority natural areas. While a local match is sometimes required to attract outside resources, these programs provide the opportunity to leverage local dollars with State and Federal in targeted areas. 44 The following chart identifies natural areas protected by other agencies in Dakota County: Agency Program DNR The DNR Metro Greenways program has helped protect the Juveland WMA, and several other 4,365 acres properties in the County have been nominated. (1,644 of which is in the Minnesota The County has three Wildlife Management Areas Valley Wildlife Refuge) (WMA's), two Scientific and Natural Areas (SNA) and one additional potential SNA is planned. A portion of Fort Snelling State Park is also in Dakota Count , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This agency has protected land in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (listed as DNR land 160 acres in the acreage totals to the left) and through a Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) in southwest Lakeville Natural Resource Conservation Service This agency restores and protects lands using (NRCS) easements on private lands through the Reinvest in Minnesota Program (RIM), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), and Conservation Reserve Program. There are no acres enrolled in the WRP program in Dakota County and the CRP is a temporary land protection program, Dakota County Parks Dakota County Parks has a dual mission to protect land and provide passive recreational opportunities. 4180 acres There are four regional parks in Dakota County and two regional trails. Dakota County also manages a County Park (Thompson) Ramsey County Parks Part of Lilydale Regional Park is in Dakota County 177 acres Hennepin County Parks Part of Murphy Hannrehan in in Dakota County 160 acres Cities and Townships There are many city parks in Dakota County. The acreage totals to the left reflect those parks with a 2847 acres natural area protection focus Private Colleges Macalester and Carleton Colleges have natural areas in the County that they manage for research 582 acres purposes. Dodge Nature Center The Dodge Nature Center in West St. Paul protects land and offers natural education programs 302 acres The Nature Conservancy Purchased land in Burnsville that is managed with 94 acres DNR as Black Dog Scientific and Natural Area 45 Public protected natural areas and private unprotected natural areas The following map shows where natural areas are already protected by public agencies along with the County's remaining natural areas that are still in private ownership. y ry �4.. ! �� .' "9`Jwii'.• J i -rip i -� f V, Current Projects and Studies that could be coordinated with the Farmland and Natural Area Plan Project Primary Description Or anization Mississippi River Friends of the Metro Greenways planning grant. Detailed sub- Greenway Mississippi River area planning study to investigate greenway opportunities along the Mississippi River. Involves communities of Rosemount, Nininger, Hastings, and Ravenna Tw . Central Dakota County Dakota County Metro Greenways planning grant. Detailed sub -area Greenway SWCD planning study of Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Hei hts, Rosemount central natural area corridor. Low Impact Development Dakota County Metro Council grant. Study to investigate SWCD techniques and land use patterns that minimize storm water runoff and impacts to the environment Pool 2 Study Metro Council Multi county study to evaluate opportunities and projects to improve, navigation, water quality, natural habitat, and economic development. Watershed Governance Dakota County Minnesota Board of Innovations grant. Study to Study determine the organizational structure that would best manage the Vermillion River watershed Wildlife Corridors MN Waterfowl Assn. LCMR grant to fund conservation projects that protect and restore wildlife corridors. A coalition of public and private organizations are supporting this project. Dakota County Park Dakota County The park and opens space plan for Dakota County System Plan that provides direction for future park acquisition and natural area protection MORE Park Study University of Plan for the Rosemount Research Station that Minnesota protects and restores natural areas on 7500 acre site Koch Litigation State agencies Possible court penalty or settlement that could be used for environmental projects in the Pine Bend Bluffs area. Koch Natural Resource Friends of the On -going discussions with Koch to manage Master Plan Mississippi River resources and place conservation easements on natural lands within the Koch reserve. Metro Greenways Multiple Nominations of property for protection in Inver Nominations Grove Heights and Hastings within Dakota County FNAP Corridors SMART Growth Twin Metro Council Metro Council study to evaluate growth patterns in Cities the Twin Cities and among other issues their impacts on natural resources and farmland Empire Treatment Plant Metro Council Metro Council study to evaluate waste water Expansion Study Environmental treatment needs and options in the South metro. Services The study could involve the protection of natural areas or greenways associated with the movement of treated wastewater to the Mississippi River Inter -regional Corridors Minnesota Dept. of This transportation study along Hwy 52 has a Study Transportation natural area mapping and inventory component. Transportation improvements in the corridor may be coordinated with natural area avoidance, mitigation, protection and restoration Big Rivers Partnership Metro Greening 47 Partnerships with non -profits Many non-profit agencies are also working toward natural area protection in Dakota County. Not all of these agencies have an outside source of funding but are working toward natural area protection through existing programs. Some of the more active organizations are: • Trust for Public Land • Friends of the Mississippi River • Friends of the Minnesota River Valley • 1000 Friends of Minnesota • Minnesota Land Trust • McKnight Foundation • Dakota County Habitat Alliance o Ducks Unlimited o MN Waterfowl Assn. o Pheasants Forever o Trout Unlimited Strategy N2: Work with other agencies through their programs to protect County priority natural areas Outcomes • Local dollars leverage DNR, NRCS, National Parks/MNRRA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Corp. of Engineers, U of M Research Center, and foundation resources • County priorities help direct land protection initiatives of outside agencies 50 Implementation of the Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan Funding Challenges s k _ Program Specifics Implementation Options I-1 Draft Farmland Protection Strategies 9) Protect productive farmland in contiguous blocks next to natural corridors using conservation easements from willing sellers 2) Promote the use and enhancement of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program 3) Assist cities and townships with local growth management controls to guide development away from priority farmland using subdivision ordinances and transfer of development rights Draft Natural Area Protection Strategies 1) Protect priority natural areas in corridors using conservation easements and fee title acquisition from willing sellers and donors 2) Work with other agencies through their programs to protect County priority natural areas 3) Work with large land owners and agencies to protect natural areas on their properties with conservation easements and natural resource management plans t-2 What those strategies look like on a map E L � n— J Options for Protecting Farmland and Natural Areas The following options were discussed with County citizens at the final series of public meetings that were held in May, 2001. The options were later discussed by the County Board at a workshop on October 16, 2001. The options are grouped by levels of program implementation, funding, and land protection acres (see chart). Each level contains all of the elements of the previous levels. Level 1: "Adopt the Plan; no program; no additional funds" • Adopt the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan including the map of priority farmland and natural areas. • Encourage and seek out other entities (DNR, etc.) to purchase or donate priority farmland or natural areas for protection. • Consider County cost -share with other entities on land protection opportunities, using "in -kind" local match (no new funding). • Support state and federal legislation that provides incentives for preserving farmland, including the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program. Level 2: "Seed Money; $100,000 in County funds; no program" • Provide financial incentives to assist other entities with purchases or donations of natural areas and farmland from County levy or fund balance on an on -going or case -by -case basis • Encourage the Metropolitan Council to provide funds for the acquisition of conservation easements and development rights on locally -identified priority farmland, as part of the forthcoming Blueprint 2030. • Continue to request State funding for the protection of natural areas and farmland, perhaps use County funds as local match. • Use County funds to pay the stewardship fee for donated conservation easements. Level 3: "Pilot Program; $93,800 LCMR Funds; $200,000 County Funds" • Establish selection criteria, technical and citizen review committees. I-4 • Advertise the program and conduct outreach to landowners in priority areas, and purchase easements/fee title from willing sellers. Purchased easements, public access easements, and fee title acquisitions would be held by the Dakota County SWCD or Dakota County. • Establishment of pilot program and local funding may qualify County for federal matching funds for farmland protection. • Hire specialized land use and zoning consultant to work with the townships to create local controls that guide rural residential development and provide protection for priority farmland/natural areas. • Provide County funds for the purchase of conservation easements and/or development rights on priority farmland in some amount ($116 million is the estimated cost for all priority areas). • Provide County funds for the purchase of some conservation easements on priority natural areas or for the fee title acquisition of some priority natural areas. Level 4: "Full Program and Referendum/Bond; $2,000,000 levy" • Fund the acquisition of some natural areas or the purchase of conservation easements from a bond issue passed by a referendum. o $236 million for the acquisition of all 36,000 acres 0 i o4 million for conservation easements over all 36,000 acres Fund the purchase of conservation easements on priority farmland from bond issue passed by a referendum (estimated cost of 116 million for all priority areas) Other Open Space Concerns Discussed at County Board Workshop In addition to the concern for protecting farmland and natural areas, the Count Board discussed other open space protection needs at a workshop on Oct. 17 ", 2001. The Board discussed park land acquisition, the Minnesota Zoo, and the Caponi Art Park as facilities that provide an open space function and the acreage and funding needs for these facilities are identified in the following table. I-5 m e{°9 4e©e - 4 »_a mmyy; \{{ - >§;�5 ®Fw -- a Ea w Challenges/Program Specifics Recent County Participation in Natural Area Protection Outside of the County Park System, the County participates in natural area protection by working with the Mississippi River Greenway project, Central Greenway project, and assisting DNR and other entities with information on acquisitions on scenic easements (e.g. Pine Bend Bluff property). In addition the County provided $100,000 in 2000/2001 to assist DNR with the purchase of the Chub Lake Natural Area, The County provided 11 % of the total purchase price. This participation with several funding sources to acquire property or easements is not limited to the Chub Lake project in Dakota County, Washington County recently purchased easements over four natural area parcels for a total cost of $1,164,400 for 142 acres. Washington County spent $150,000 toward the purchase. There were eight other property owners who expressed an interest in participating in this pilot program. The Washington County program does not have a source of long-term funding. The Chub Lake example and the Washington County Green Corridors project are examples of how Dakota can leverage land protection using funding from outside sources. Chub Lake Wildlife ( Washington County � Management Area Green Corridors si 000.000 S1,40000 _ s900000 rOr e S1.200,000 se00000 citizens I UNR '. OSEP S1.000.0DO 900p00 1 ! ❑0cmR 6600.000 ❑ is $00 000 (0 ) 0'Aba0bury 5500000 . ❑Eurekaiwp $6o00o0®s.N2sb. sn00.000 -i 05 eFunds W tl iSa00,000 3300,000 si ❑County 5200000 0081 ( 30M County(n%) 5200000 st00.000 1 $0 so Acquisition versus Easements for Natural Area Protection The Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan proposes to use acquisition of fee title and acquisition of conservation easements to protect natural areas. The following table highlights key differences between these protection methods: Public Ownership Characteristics Easement Over Private Land Protection Full protection of Full protection of land area within the acquired area. conservation easement. Cost $52 m. more (est.) $52 m. less (est.) County control Control what can Control what can't be done; requires and can't be done amending agreement to change ; and can than e this Zoning affect on use No affect on use Property area with easement over it does unless County not change; surrounding property use can (which is not controlled by Dakota decides to sell or change and be developed according to County but by the Townships; can be develop land new zoning (e.g. change from Ag to changed on a majority vote) Residential) Public Access to the area Can provide public Negotiate public access, if desired access as in public ownership, if desired Contiguous parcels to maximize County can If voluntary, control over contiguousness natural area being preserved determine what of parcels must be determined to be parcels it wants to important in easement acquisition criteria pursue for acquisition and decide if the parcels should be conti uous. Permanency Permanent until Permanent if a requirement of the County sells program. I-8 Characteristics of Using Easements for Farmland Protection The Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan proposes to use acquisition of conservation easements to protect farmland (sometimes called purchase of development rights). The following table highlights key characteristics a program that would purchase farmland conservation easements from willing landowners: Easement over private farmland Protection Protects land area defined within the conservation easement. Ownership Privately owned property with easement guaranteeing use remains agriculture Public access Typically, no public access Zoning and future use Township controls future zoning and use on the property not controlled by County; easement would stay on farm, but not necessarily on neighboring properties if zoning went from 1 unit in 40 acres Contiguousness of parcels If voluntary, no guarantee; can make it a priority criteria in the program Permanency Can require permanency; but leave room to renegotiate in future under certain conditions Summary of Existing Agricultural Preservation Programs in Dakota County In addition to the use of permanent easements, farmland can be protected through State programs that offer landowners tax incentives to keep their land in agricultural use. It is a common practice in other parts of the country to coordinate these preferential taxation programs with programs that purchase conservation easements. Many participants at the projects public meetings suggested strengthening these programs with added financial incentives to increase landowner participation and reduce the pressure to develop farmland. The following table summarizes key characteristics of these programs in Dakota County: Program Commitmen Benefit #Acres #Enrolled Cost t to Ag use eligible / Delays Any 10 acre State Annual assessments minimum that is 115,900 Not Green Acres demonstrated acres determined Maintain Ag tax in agricultural status use Metro 8 year $1.50 property tax 202,000 acres 64,28 acres $96, 387 Agricultural easement for credit per acre in 1/40 zoning or 32% of Preserves agriculture or eligible forestry No assessments Maintain Ag tax status Combination of 180,158 or both programs 82% of total ag. Acres in Count I-9 Importance of Zoning in Coordinating FarmlandiNaturaI Area Protection According to most land protection experts, zoning is probably the most effective tool for protecting farmland and natural areas and is an important ingredient in successful land protection programs. Zoning decisions made by locally elected officials are an exercise in democracy where the will of the voters is reflected in a community's land use plan and zoning to implement that plan. Further, zoning is relatively inexpensive when compared to other tools such as purchase of development rights. The challenge for most communities is balancing the public purpose of protecting farmland and natural areas using zoning with individual property rights. Consequently, the following limitations can interfere with the exclusive use of zoning to protect farmland and natural areas: For Farmland: Legally, zoning can be used in Minnesota to restrict land to agricultural use. Practically, local governments have not exercised their full land use authority because they believe that an unfair economic burden is placed on a few landowners that are providing open space for the larger community at their own expense. In other words, zoning restricts landowners from selling their land for development and realizing its full economic value so that the majority of others in the community can enjoy the positive externalities of open space and rural character. In a word, many communities see restricting landowners to agricultural land use indefinitely as unfair. Unlike many other metropolitan counties, townships control land use in Dakota County. 12 of the 13 townships in Dakota County zone agricultural an at a density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres, representing 202,000 acres or 91 % of the 221,000 acres of total farmland in the County. In addition some townships permit development rights (dwelling unit/40 acres) to be transferred from one property to another property (called clustering). For example, one 40 acre parcel might have two dwelling units but there would be no dwelling units on another 40 acres. The three members of the town board may change the zoning on a property by a 2 to 1 vote of the town board. For Natural Areas: The main limitation for using zoning to protect natural areas is that zoning cannot result in a taking of private property and cannot regulate land so that it does not have any economic value. This makes it difficult to zone an entire natural area to a designation that prevents either development or agriculture. Natural areas can be preserved concurrent with development using cluster zoning that directs houses away from these areas by awarding density bonuses if houses can be clustered outside of natural areas. The challenge with this approach is that it is the natural areas themselves that attract people to rural settings and protecting these areas using zoning is often in conflict with using them as home sites. Clearly, local zoning is important in protecting natural areas and farmlands, but most experts believe that zoning should be used in conjunction with other tools to each a balance between community goals and individual rights. While zoning has some limitations, it would be nearly impossible to have any meaningful protection strategy without using zoning as a regulatory tool. Expectations of Public Access on Land Protected by Conservation Easements At the public meetings, there was an expectation that a combination of private protection and public access would need to exist in the natural corridors. One option would be to give highest priority to conservation easement proposals with some level of public access (such as via a trail, fishing easement, or navigable water way. In some cases, such as properties with rare and endangered plant or wildlife species, it may not be necessary or even desired to have public access. Impacts on Neighboring Property from Easement Programs There are a number of ways that an adjacent property can be impacted: a) Case studies have shown that in most cases land adjacent to protected land increases in value. b) If public access is allowed on a conservation easement, the public could impact the neighboring property. c) If a neighbor's property is eligible for land protection, and adjacent to a protected property, it will score higher according to the proposed criteria d) Protected properties could block extension of urban services (a positive or a negative impact depending on the neighboring landowners perspective). Tax Impacts of Easement Programs Property taxes for farmland would be held at farmland levels —just like today if farmers are enrolled in the Ag. Preserve Program. The cost of providing services to these areas would also be held at today's levels. While farmland does not pay much in property tax, it is generally recognized that farming pays more than the cost of the services that it requires. Natural areas will pay taxes based on what the land would sell for on the open market without its development rights. Again, the relatively low tax generated should be evaluated relative to the cost of services that the land requires. Studies have shown that over time these natural lands can be very desirable and t is common for the surrounding land to increase in value, resulting in more tax revenue from adjacent property. Responsibility for Program Management The County has several options with respect to implementation. If there is a County program that uses County dollars to purchase conservation easements the County may wish to be the implementing agency or work in partnership with another agency such as the Soil and Water Conservation District. In some programs, non-profit organizations have the responsibility of holding and monitoring conservation easements. If State or Federal funds become available, the terms of land protection would have to be coordinated with these agencies. Funding Successful land protection programs rely upon a sufficient, sustained source of funding. Almost without exception, these programs combine funding from Federal, State, and local sources. The largest of these sources is typically State funding. County funding could be leveraged and coordinated with funding from these other sources. Even low cost efforts such as using donated conservation easements would require funding to monitor and enforce the easements. If the County Board wants to explore an easement acquisition program here's Oat residents said in a 1999 survey about their level of support: Funding Source for natural areas A prove Disapprove Annual Property Increase of 9.65 per $100,000 home value per year 58 % 38 Sales tax increase 38 % 57 1/10 of sales tax increase on ballot 52 % 44 20 Year bond referendum no dollar fi urel. 49 % 41 % _ 20 Year bond referendum (4 million) of 1.47 per year per $100,000 of home value 62 % 31 $35 flat fee per household per year 32 % 63 Increase deed transfer tax 33 55 Developer impact fees 1 63 % 28 Based on these results the property tax referendum, 20 year bond, and the 1/10 of one per cent sales tax all have the best chance of passing. Impact fees are not permitted in Minnesota. L -- O � p ds o d � w G R q Ffi o C > O N M R 4 O C N O fA ci^. T 3 a o 0 N O d O F o p �3 F. cl O P N O w O�o �o 4UJ � "a,Q o c o w U a w E E 0 0 F❑ O F C O L 00 I-14 Appendix A: Stakeholder Issues, Concerns and input Stakeholder Identification Throughout the course of the farmland and natural area project, there was an on- going effort to identify different perspectives about land conservation and learn about the concerns of people that could be impacted by the use of land protection tools. The following summary characterizes viewpoints of major stakeholders: Citizens from meetings Farmers/landowners Agriculture related businesses Resource Protection Agencies Realtors/Developers Cities and Townships Citizen Perspectives Perhaps the most important element of this study has been gathering citizen input to define the public purpose for protecting farmland and natural areas. Citizen input has been collected in the form of comments at public meetings, public opinion surveys, photos that have been submitted, and as a result of numerous one on one conversations, letters, and e-mails. At public meetings, citizens were asked to rank priority natural lands for protection. The top four areas identified were: • Large contiguous areas of natural habitat • Wetlands • Land within 300' of rivers and streams • Lands of biological significance The citizens that attended the public meetings were given disposable cameras and asked to take pictures of the natural areas and farmlands that they felt were important to protect. In all, more than 400 photos were taken and submitted to project partners. While the photos themselves are valuable, several trends emerged. Most of the photos contained water, either lakes, streams, rivers or wetlands. Many of the photos were taken at the same locations that citizens identified on maps as priority areas to protect. The following areas were photographed repeatedly: • Mississippi River • Minnesota River • Vermillion River • Cannon River • Areas next to regional parks • Rich Valley area • Marcott Lakes area and lakes and ponds in IGH and Rosemount Farmer Perspectives Farmers are important stakeholders because they are the private landowners most impacted by land protection initiatives. Farmers in Dakota County are dealing with many unknowns. They need to make decisions about whether or not to continue to farm and whether or not their children will farm. In short, farmers need to assess whether to keep farming or to cash out after analyzing their family needs and evaluating external circumstances. They must consider a combination of economic and moral factors. If the County considers a program to purchase conservation easements from willing landowners, farmers will have more options available to them, but also more decisions to make. The following list summarizes some of the key points from the farmer stakeholder meeting discussion. • Desire to farm vs. desire to cash out • Permanent easements vs, temporary easements • Land prices have increased rapidly over the last several years • Permanent farms vs. permanent development • Many farmers have a very strong desire to preserve land that goes beyond maximizing economic gain • In general farmers were supportive, but desire to learn more Some farmers were wary of the use of conservation easements and want to make sure that a program does not limit their opportunity to develop land in the future. Agriculture Related Business Perspectives Project planners met with representatives of the County's agri-business community including; lenders, implement dealers, feed and seed distributors, elevator operators, dairy processing. Their main concerns/points are: Businesses have a key interest in long term agriculture in Dakota County Livestock businesses may create greater land use conflict If the number of farms in the County continues to decrease, businesses will need to diversify beyond sales to the agricultural sector. Perspectives of Other Resource Protection Agencies (programs) There are many agencies that are interested in land protection in Dakota County. Project planners met with a number of these agencies to talk about how their land conservation interests may coincide with the County's priorities. The following are some the opportunities that were identified: • Wildlife management areas • Waterfowl production areas • Wetland reserve program • Ag. Preserve program • Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) • Match grants (finance) • Use conservation easements on private land to buffer and enhance other protected lands Realtor/Developer Perspectives Dakota County realtors and developers are major stakeholders in any proposal to protect or conserve land. Land is the fuel of the development industry and land protection programs can restrict the supply of land. In meetings with representatives from the realty and developer community the following points were discussed: • Avoid unintended consequences of open space preservation (non- crossable green spaces, government interference with market) • More land protection may mean more expensive lots and less affordable housing • Natural area protection can enhance neighborhoods • Less interest in protecting farmland • People in new developments like having farmland out their window and then are disappointed when it develops (unrealistic) • Someday we will reach 2040 and need a land supply • Advocate a natural resource master plan (give developer predictability) • Balance development/preservation interests City Perspectives At meetings with city staff, project planners discussed how a County program may work with city planning and parks activities. The following list summarizes some of the key discussion points of those meetings: • Many cities have applied for Metro Greenway grants (Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, Hastings, and Apple Valley) Developed cities still value rivers, connections through regional trails • Some cities are already using conservation easements next to parks and public land (Eagan, Burnsville, Hastings)Many cities are using ordinances as the primary means of protection • Very little interest in protecting farms (exceptions: Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, Lakeville farm heritage park)Conservation easements on private land make sense next to public land or on private land with public access. Township Perspectives Project planners met with township officials at work sessions to discuss how a County program would impact planning in the townships. Most still trying to enforce 1/40 but pressure is increasing Most interested in permanent farmland protection but some wonder if it is too late Many support natural area protection using conservation easements since they do not use park dedication Notes from individual city meetings Apple Valley • Trying to create 200' wide greenway in south central Apple Valley, potential link to the Vermillion River • May be interested in creating connections to Mississippi River across Rosemount • Pahl's market may be the last "agriculture" in the city. Farm market is used and appreciated by residents. • Applied to DNR for metro greenway planning grant for drainage area. Burnsville • Completed a natural resource management plan • Worked with private land owners along the Minnesota River to consider conservation easements Eagan • Trying to create a greenway corridor between city hall/water park and Lebanon Hills. Would include Caponi property, McCarty property, others? • City uses conservation easements adjacent to parks • Golf course land in northern Eagan (maybe water quality management for industrial impervious surface) • May be interested in connections to or land protection in adjacent Inver Grove Heights Farmington • Trying to create greenways and protect land concurrent with development. • Using tools such as park dedication, wetland regulation, and river setbacks to reserve corridors. • Main emphasis is Vermillion River main channel but interested in smaller greenway corridors in the city as well. • Not particularly interested in farmland protection as a permanent land use in the city. Inver Grove Heights • City has done open space inventory for the northwest quadrant. • Large grass roots contingency of people that would like to protect open space in the city. • Have had some discussions with the DNR about a possible SNA in the Pine Bend bluffs area. • Applied with Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake for Metro greenways planning grant for Rich Valley area. • Have tried to protect some farms in the past through special zoning districts that protect against assessments. Lakeville • Also trying to create greenway corridors concurrent with development. • City passed a park referendum several years ago to increase park system and protection of lands. • City uses tools such as wetland ordinances, stream setbacks, park dedication, and expenditures from park fund to protect land and assemble park system. • City uses condemnation when necessary to acquire key pieces of land. • May be interested in working with the County to identify future regional park location within city. • Interested in making connections to the Vermillion River and outside of the cities boundaries. • Not certain of the role of conservation easements using public dollars. • May be interested in preserving "farming heritage" through preservation of an old farmstead in north eastern Lakeville. Rosemount • City is currently working with Friends of the Mississippi River on greenway planning in that corridor. • Starting a parks and open space plan in Spring of 2001 that will incorporate greenways. • May be able to create a greenway between civic center and Rosemount Research Center • May be able to create a greenway in the northern part of the city where the MUSA is planned to expand. South St. Paul • Not particularly interested in conservation easements within city. • Want to complete MRRT south past barge facility and into IGH. Protection of IGH land along river may be of some benefit. • Sportsman groups might like wildlife conservation/restoration efforts for pheasant hunting, duck hunting, trout fishing in southern part of the County, • May be interested in natural area protection along the NURT in West St. Paul once bridge is constructed over hwy 52. Hastings • City uses conservation easements adjacent to parks. • May be interested in placing conservation easements along the Vermillion River on north side ($200,000) metro greenway grant • Interested in protecting land along Mississippi River on northwest side of city and in designated greenways • City has designated greenways within and outside of the County City of.Mendota Heights Parks & Recreation Commission March 8, 2002 Memo to: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: Update of Parks Five -Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Background: The Commission approved revisions to the plan at the February meeting and directed that the revised plan be presented to the City Council. Discussion: The revised plan was placed on the Council Consent Agenda for the March 7`h, 2002 meeting. The Council acknowledged receipt of the plan with no comments. A few days prior to the Council meeting Council Member Schneeman and Council Member Vitelli inquired why the Commission omitted funding for reconstruction of the Ivy Park tennis courts from the Five -Year Plan. I informed them that the Commission was not in favor of using Special Park Funds to repair the courts and that a Public Open House meeting was scheduled for March 1 2" to gather resident input on this issue. Following this meeting the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the future of the tennis courts. Council Member Schneeman also inquired about the safety netting proposed for Mendakota Park. She asked for background information on why this project was reprioritized from the 2004 to the 2002 construction season. I informed her that the Mendota Heights Athletic Association requested a design change to the areas to be netted, asked that the project be completed in 2002, and offered to pay 50% of the costs of this improvement. I also informed her that the design change I substantially lowers the cost of this improvement. Recommendation: Review the revised plan. Action Required: None. This memo is for information only. City of Mendota Heights MEMORANDUM February 27, 2002 Memo to: Mayor, Council Members, and City Administrator From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: Update of Parks Five -Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Background: In December 2000 the City Council acknowledged the Parks Five -Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan as a working guide and budget -forecasting tool for the Commission to be annually updated to recognize the needs of the park system. The Commission realizes that City Council is not going to automatically approve every item in the plan and that these items will have to be annually considered for approval. Discussion: The Parks and Recreation Commission, after reviewing the status of Park Improvement Projects begun or completed in 2001, have made revisions to the proposed projects scheduled for completion in the remaining four years of the plan. New projects have been added, projects deleted, revised or given a new priority. Attached is an update of the Parks Five -Year (2001-2005) Capita/ Improvement Plan that also indicates project activity in 2001 and projected expenditures for the remaining years of the plan. Summary of Project Expenditures 2001 Actual project expenditures $ 98,025.00 2002 a. Uncompleted projects from 2001 $ 49,000.00 b. Proposed projects $ 94,204.00 2003 Proposed projects $122,000,00 2004 Proposed projects $ 74,000.00 2005 Proposed projects $ 30,000,00 Five Year Plan -Total Projected Costs = $467,229.00 The original Five Year Plan projected total Project Cost Expenditures of $394,000,00, A DNR "$10,000.00 matching grant" for development of a Natural Resource Inventory and Management Plan, received in December 2001, in addition to $11,000.00 in "50% matching funds" from MHAA for projects scheduled in 2002 & 2003, increases this amount to $415,000.00. When project cost estimates were developed, it was assumed that additional "other" costs such as assessments, administration fees, sundry expenses, and staff time, all of which are funded from the Special Park Fund each year, would add approximately fifteen percent 05%) of each year's project costs to the yearly total expenditures from the Special Park Fund. These costs are not included in the above planned project actual or estimated costs, but are included separately following each plan years total projects costs. Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council acknowledge the revised Parks Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan as a working guide and budget document that is intended to recognize the needs of the parks system and to ensure its preservation. Action Required: Review the revised Parks Five -Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan for the park system. If the Council desires to implement the Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion to acknowledge the revised plan as a working guide and budget document that is intended to recognize the needs of the parks system. Attachment: Revised/Updated: Parks Five Year (2001 2005) Capital Improvement Plan City of Mendota Heights Parks Five- Year (2001.2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Update: February 12, 2002 2001 -Projects Planned COST TO DATE 1. Roger's Lake Park- Replace wood 100% Complete $24,644.00 timber play equipment-$20,000.00 2. Roger's Lake Park- Install bituminous 100% Complete $ 2,400.00 paths to fishing pier and play area $6,000 3. Marie Park- Install bituminous path 70% Complete $ 2,110.00 to play area and warming house. ($3K to finish) Install synthetic resilient surface in play area - $7,000 4. Marie Park- Replace hockey boards 100% Complete $26,565.00 and install new rink lights-$25,000 5. Hire Consultant to prepare grant 100% Complete $ 3,000.00 application- $5,000 6. Consultant prepares Natural Resource 25% Complete $ 5,283.00 Inventory & Management Plan- $10,000 (15K to finish) (DNR matching grant = $9,840) 7. Ivy Hills Park- Remove warming house 100% Complete $ 1,003.00 $2,000 8. Trail Safety & Info Signage- $6,000 0% Complete 0 (21 miles trails/11 parks) Finish in 2002 9. Wentworth Park- Replace warming 0% Complete 0 house-$25,000 Finish in 2002 New Projects Added to Adopted 5 Year P/an 10. Funds for Mendota Elementary P/ay 100 %Complete S 8,000.00 Equipment- 58,000 11. Install Bridge in Valley Park to Rep/ace 100% Complete $25,000.00 washed out culverts- $18, 750. 00 Original Estimate of Project Expenditures = $106,000.00 Plus "New Added Projects" _ $ 26,750.00 Estimated Total= $132,750.00 Actual Expenditures During 2001 = S 98,205.00 Other expenditures in 2001 = $19,000.00 (Assessments $5,300, Admin. Fees S 1,500, Postage/Mileage/Sundry S 1,000, Staff time (Guy Kullander S 1 1,200) City of Mendota Heights Parks Five- Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Updated: February 12, 2002 2002 - Projects Planned 1. Friendly Hills Park- Replace wood timber play equipment- $20,540.00 2. Valley Park- Replace wood timber play equipment- $25,664.00 3. Friendly Hills & Valley Parks- Install bituminous access pathways to play areas- $6,000 4. Matching funds for possible DNR Grant- $10,000 5. Valley Park- Cross country ski trail $5,000 6. Wentworth Park- Bituminous path to warming house, handrails, & benches- $10,000 Proiects deleted or moved to future p/an year 7. Friendly Hills Park- Replace wood bridge to tennis courts- $4,000 8. Tennis court entrance gate- $2,000 New Projects Added to P/an-Build in 2002 9. Mendakota Park- Install fence at south end of soccer field-$3,000 10. Civic Center Ball Field- Install larger storage box-$1,000 (MHAA request)** 11. Mendakota Park- Safety netting over batters box/backstops-$12,000 (MHAA request)** 12. Mendakota Park- Storage shelf in concession area-$1,000 (MHAA request)** Proiects "carried over" from 2009 Plan Year Approved by Council Dec. 2001 Approved by Council Dec. 2001 Council authorized up to $3K to prep. Grant application Reconsider in 2004 Deleted from plan Added Jan. 8, 2002 Added Feb. 12, 2002 Originally scheduled in 2005 @ $25 K —Design change resulted in lower estimate. Added Feb. 12, 2002 13. 2001-#3. Marie Park- Resilient surfacing in play area. Work remaining-$3,000 14, 200146. Natural Resource Inventory / Management Plan- Barr Eng.-Work remaining $15,000 15, 200148. Trail/Park Signage- Work remaining-$6,000 16, 200149, Wentworth Park- Replace Warming House Work remaining-$25,000 Proposed 2002 Project Expenditures 1. Projects carried over from 2001 $49,000.00 2. New or added projects to original plan $1 7,000.00 3. Deleted or moved to future year- ($6,000.00) 4. Council approved projects (Play areas) $46,204.00 5. Remaining adopted projects $31,000.00 Projects schedu/ed for comp/etion in 2002 — Tota/ 5943,204.00 Other expenditures estimated for 2002 = 522,728.00 (Assessment 54,728, Admin. Fees $ZOOO, Postage/Mileage/Sundry $1,000, Staff time (Guy Kullander $15, 000) * *Mendota Heights Athletic Association requested projects to be funded 50% by MHAA and 50 % from Special Park Fund. MHAA offers to reimburse City at $4,000 per year towards approved projects. City of Mendota Heights Parks Five- Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Updated., February 12, 2002 2003 -Projects P/armed 1. Wentworth Park- Replace wood timber play equipment- $17,000 2. Hagstrom-King Park- Replace wood timber play equipment and sand surf acing-$22,000 3. Ivy Hill Park- Upgrade play area & surfacing $12,000 4. Friendly Hills Park -.Hand rail, benches by skating areas-$7,000 5. Valley View Heights Park- replace wood timber play equipment-$17,000 6. Matching funds for possible DNR grant- $10,000 Project deleted or moved to future Year 7. Tennis court gate area- $2,000 Deleted from plan New Proiects Added to Adopted 5 Year Plan 8. Civic Center Ball Field- Backstop upgrade- Added Feb. 12, 2002 add 10 ft. wings -both sides-$3,000 (MHAA request) 9. Civic Center Ball Field- Build practice Added Feb. 12, 2002 pitching mound & fence-$4,000 (MHAA request) 10. Bituminous paths in Hagstom-King & Wentworth to play areas- $6,000 11. Skate Park Equipment/Ramps (Tier 1) Added Feb. 12, 2002 Seasonally located at paved hockey rink In Friendly Hills Park-$24,000 Proposed 2003 Project Expenditures: 1. New or added projects $37,000000 2. Deleted or moved to future year-($2,000.00) 3. Remaining adopted projects $85,000.00 Projects schedu/ed for comp/etion in 2003 - Tota/ 5122,000.00 Other expenditures estimated for 2003 = $19,441.00 (Assessment 54,441.00, Admin. Fees $1,500, Postage/Mileage/Sundry $1,000, Staff time (Guy Kul/ander $121500 * *Mendota Heights Athletic Association requested projects to be funded 50% by MHAA and 50% from Special Park Fund. MHAA offers to reimburse City at $4,000 per year towards approved projects.) City of Mendota Heights Park Five- Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Update: February 12, 2002 2004 -Projects P/armed 1. Victoria Highlands Park- Upgrades to play area-$14,000 2. Mendakota Park- Upgrades to play area-$10,000 3. Kensington Park (south)- Upgrades to play area-$9,000 4. Valley Park — Extend cross country ski trails-$10,000 5. Mendakota Park- Install sand volley ball court-$6,000 6. Wentworth Park- Pond fountain $5,000 7. Ball field improvement (benches & safety fencing) at Mendota & Somerset Elementary Schools- $16,000 Project deleted from plan or moved from another year 8. Tennis courts (2) replace gates- $4,000 Deleted from plan 9. Friendly Hills Park -Replace wood bridge to tennis courts-$4,000 Moved from 2002 Proposed 2004 Project Expenditures 1. Deleted project-($4,000.00) 2. Remaining proposed projects $74,000,00 Projects scheduled for comp/etion in 2003 -Total 574,000.00 Other expenditures estimated for 2004 = S 15,155.00 (Assessment 54,155.00, Admin. Fees $2,000, Postage/Mileage/Sundry $1,000, Staff time (Guy Kullander) $8, 000. 00) ----------------------------------------------------------- City of Mendota Heights Parks 5 Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Updated: February 12, 2002 2005 -Projects P/armed 1. Replace/repair backstops in three Neighborhood Parks- $10,000 2. Hagstrom-King Park- Install full size basketball court-$15,000 3. Kensington Park (north)- Install pond fountain-$5,000 Projects deleted or moved to another year 4. Mendakota Park- Install netting over Hub area at ball fields $25,000 5. Tennis courts (2) replace gates- $4,000 Proposed 2005 Project Expenditures: 1. Deleted Project 2, Project Moved to another year 3. Remaining proposed projects Moved to 2002 Deleted from plan $30,000.0O Projects scheduled for completion in 2005 -Total 530,000.00 Other expenditures estimated for 2005 = $ 12,868.00 (Assessment 53,868.00, Admin. Fees S2,000, Postage/Mileage/Sundry S 1,000, Staff 56,000) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMORANDUM DATE: 3/12/2002 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: TERESA GANGELHOFF RE: FEBRUARY PARKS AND RECREATION REPORT Programs The following programs were offered by the Parks and Recreation Department during the month of February: Learn to Skate: Classes were held at the Friendly Hills Park pleasure rink on Saturday mornings. A total of 32 students were given a certificate of completion. Adult lessons were offered but we did not get enough interest so it was cancelled. Youth Ski Trips: Due to lack of snow our last trip planned in February was cancelled. Rink/warming House Update Weather conditions and ice conditions have been very poor this season. We closed all the rinks officially on Monday, February11th. Softball 2002 Registrations are being taken. We still are in need of a few more teams in the Women's D or it will be cancelled. I have some interest in Co-Rec so I may add that in place of the Women's league or run it Sunday Evenings. Spring Break Trips We are currently taking registrations for 3 trips over spring break. Monday, March 25- Minnesota Zoo. Tuesday, March 26- Grand Slam and roller skating. Wednesday, March 27- Science Museum. Spring/Summer Golf The Parks and Recreation Department will be offering a number of golf programs including: Juniors, Parent/Child, Women and Senior's golf leagues and Youth and Adult lessons and Youth Camps. Rogers Lake Fishing Derb August 4 h is the tentative date for the derby. I am wa ring to hear back from Mr. Timm who helps run this event. Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks -Saturday June 1, 10:00a.m.-1:00P.m. Over 200letters have been mailed out to area businesses asking for sponsorship of this event. We have also added a Bike Rodeo that will be run by the police department and Mendota Schwinn, SafetX Came I have been meeting with WSP and SSP and the VFW to organize this event which will be held August 13, 14, and 15th. The City of Mendota Heights authorizes $15,000 for the purpose of contributing to a study to determine the financial feasibility of a basic hockey rink to serve: The public of Mendota Heights," construed to mean the youth of Mendota Heights who participate in the West St. Paul Hockey Association and other Mendota Heights users such as high schools, skating clubs, and free skating. St. Thomas Academy Varsity and Junior Varsity Hockey Teams Constraints: the January 11, 2002 workshop, representatives of St. Thomas Academy and members of the City of Mendota Heights stated that they will not commit their organizations to participate in the operating losses of the rink. II. Specifications for the basic hockey facility designed to serve high school and youth hockey are: A. Single Rink of normal size for high school and youth hockey; B. Scoreboards and other equipment appropriate for high school and youth hockey; C. Locker rooms for high school and youth hockey — appointments and number standard for the user groups; D. Spectator seating for 1200; E. Ability to have concessions, common area, and lavatory facilities; F. Parking for 400 cars; G. 600 square feet of space for Mendota Heights Athletic Association and/ or West St. Paul Hockey Association; and H. 1500 square feet of space for storage for Mendota Heights Athletic Association and/or West St. Paul Hockey Association equipment. III. The University of St. Thomas will be responsible for enhancements to the rink to serve MIAC collegiate hockey team (or Division I). The impact of collegiate participation to the basic hockey rink is to be calculated for the facilities, ice time for other users, operating costs and revenue. Anticipated collegiate upgrades would include: A. Locker rooms for Men's and Women's hockey B. Weight room C. Parking D. Scoreboard E. Seating IV. For the option of a second sheet of ice, the accompanying costs and benefits should be calculated for both the basic rink and the enhanced facility. The same constraints expressed by the organizations participating in the feasibility study would apply. V. St. Thomas Academy has agreed to fund $10,000 for this cause, prorated with the City's $15,000 contribution. Complex almost ready Solving the fort's water i 1 y problem is seen as a key ele- merit in finding :a way to use (continued) the 28 empty buildings.near. The property is part of the so-called "Upper Bluffs" former military reservation that includes a golf course operated by the park board since 1992, plus an array of deserted mili- tary buildings and the parade grounds. The Minnesota His- torical Society's "Historic Fort Snelling" is a wholly different site, located farther east near the junction of the Mississippi - Minnesota rivers. the time the lawsuit was tried, the association's attorney, Mark Anfinson, said the light stands and fences would "fun- damentally degrade one of the most precious historical sites in Minnesota." He compared the open space to St. Paul's Capitol mall or the national mail in Washington. Anfinson could not be reached for comment about the civil court trial scheduled to begin this morning before Hen- nepin County District Judge Franklin Knoll. However, Brian Rice, attorney for the park board, said he thinks the trial will last three days and that Knoll will rule later. The association, a nonprofit organization that has champi oned restoration and preserva tion efforts at Fort Snelling since 1961, sought to halt the project last year through an njunction. But Knoll ruled in August that construction could go forward and that the parade grounds could be changed back to an open space if the associa- t on prevails in its lawsuit. About;$14 million is .being spent on the project, including $5 million for complicated land deals with federal and state agencies, plus the purchase of property from an Alaskan Indi- an tribe that had swapped land needed for the Alaskan pipeline for a chunk of federal property near the historic fort. The disputed :_: parade grounds are owned by the state Department of Natural Resources, which has leased the property to the park board for 30 years, Under the agree- ment, the park board agreed to spend $2 million to bring city seater servicetothe 141-acre "Upper Bluffs" area of the old military reservation. .the .parade ,.'..grounds that remain from what was once called the "country' club post" of the U.S. Army.' :`:'':, ".When `I started with the DNR in 1987, I made a' list of things to accoinplish,'and one of them was to solve the Fort Snelling problem," said Bill Morrissey, director of state parks. "This is a good start" Though not involved in the legal dispute, another element of the sports complex is the Fort Snelling Tennis.. and Learning Center, a $5 million facility that has been financed by Minneapolis businessman Fred Wells through his Wells Family Foundation. Scheduled to open May 6 and be dedicated June 8, the center is adjacent to the parade grounds on land pur- chased --from the,federal.gov. ernment. It includes a 17,000-square- foot building, plus seven courts that will be enclosed under a bubble. in winter. Executive Director Dan Shannon said the courts and classrooms will teach tennis and life skills to St Paul and Minneapolis chii- dren tinder the U.S. Tennis Association Northern Section's multicultural program. Also planned for the future s an ice skating facility in a nearby brick building that once was the drill hall for the lrmy's cavalry program at the fort: The park board bought the huge building for $800,000, Siggellcow, said the fields and )tennis courts eventually will be used by nearly 200,000 children and young adults, most of them organized through the city's park and school programs. The baseball fields also are expected to be used by St. Paul and Minneapo- lis youth teams through a pro- gram sponsored by the Min- nesota Twins, he said. Rice, the lead defense attor- ney in the trial. that begins today, said the sports complex, despite opposition by the asso- ciation, may accomplish one of its principal goals — creating in in the old fort. - - "You get a few hundred thousand kids and parents out there and they'll discover that all those empty buildings are there," he said. "It may do more toward pre- serving Minnesota history than a lot of other things that have been tried." v :/` r r ` 1` ssues policy l or scooter and kateboard us] Associated Press � � 6)2� CHICAGO Unless they're supervised by adults, kids under 10 L.' shouldn'tuse skateboards and those under 8 shouldn't use nonmotor-: Y; izad scooters, according to new g gu defines from the AmericanAcad- emyofPediatrics.. ar Nonmotorized scooters have soared in popularity —. with an ac- companying rise in injuries — in the p past two years, and the guidelines for their use are the first issued by€ the nation's largest pediatricians= group. Noting a resurgence in skate board popularity, the recommenda- v tions also update the academy'si 1995 skateboard, policy, which says f. children under 5 shouldn't use the f; boards. The new policy adds the age t ] nitfor unsupervised use, - = The -.updated policy appears in Nc the March issue of the academy s medicaljoumal,Pediatrics. ' it Data from the Consumer Prod- uct Safety Commission shows emer-,Rl to nohmotorized"scooters soared from 40,500 in 2000 to more than 84,400 from January 2001 through September 2001. Most involved chil- 4; d en under 15 with fractures or head uries. ! The number of people'under 20 ' njured in skateboard accidentsi ciinbed from about 24,000 in 1994 to 51,000 in 1999, the academy said, y ci itgdata from the commission. "young children may be at high;'J, sk of injury from skateboards and scooters because their judgment of heir own skills and strength is often; poor, as is their ability to judge foot' orvehiculartraffic,"the policy says. In addition, young children have a higher center of gravity than older 3i youngsters and adults, making them more likely to topple onto their;; heads, said Dr. Gary Smith, director of the Center for Injury Researchiti and Policy at Children's Hospital inS Columbus, Olio. Smith is a member of the academy committee that,. - to the newguidehnes. To prevent such injuries, chit-% d enshould wear helmets whenrid-r`' i g skateboards and scooters, Smith,,`.' said. The`policy also reconunends" ge sucli as knee pads and elbow:; pads, and urges conunu idi s to d;-'.t velop skateboard parks, which it says are probable safer than home- h,,ilrromn0 �T,A 6..-..-.. l�ssrorin the green Corridor The Suburban Dakota County Greenway Project will identify quality natural areas, prioritize restoration efforts, and empower landowners to create a viable suburban greenway corridor in northern Dakota County, L'LY O.LL[ wr.7T 57 PALA i /Jd/ixu i GII 8 LAK 1 ♦^. -.�. INYEp 6 GVE HEIGHTS EA6AM V \ Y�J ROE MCtNT i 1('i"t'y' iS 'ihis are:] 1ti;pijr"iant' Detailed natural resource inventories recently identified multiple potential green corridors that can provide a natural, ecological connection between Lilydale Regional Park, Eagan's Lebanon Hills, Dodge Nature Center in Sunfish Lake and West Saint Paul, Morcott Lakes in Inver Grove Heights, and the Pine Bend Bluffs on the Mississippi River. These green corridors can provide tremendous wildlife habitat and create a green pathway across the county. akota County Soil and Water Conservation District 4100 ZZOth Street !'1/est, Farmington, yr1N 55024 Y�lhet are Tile project objectives? • Focus on an ecologically -based corridor. Work with local units of government to protect and enhance the greenway. • Partner with landowners • Enhance and focus ongoing greenway and open space planning efforts, How will we meet these objectives? • Use recently completed land cover data to analyze the greenway. • Gain input from citizens. • Identify existing natural areas, potential restoration areas, and corridor barriers. • Develop a corridor barrier circumvention options plan. Determine optimal natural community types for high-ranking restoration areas. • Conduct greenway design workshops. • Work with landowners to design and implement preservation plans. 11�i1v are the projeci pat it'f?r=! Landowners • Cities of Lilydale, Mendota Hts, W. 5t, Paul, Sunfish Lake, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, and Rosemount • South Robert Trail Neighborhood Association Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District • Dakota County • Friends of the Mississippi River • Critical Connections o DNR uestiot s:� Call day Riggs, Dakota SWCD's Urban Conservationist, at 651.480,7779 P: 65Z480-7777 F• 651.480-7775 www.dakotaswcdorg o Funded in Part by a DNR Metro Greenway Grant INCIDENT SUMMARIES - PARKS 0-01-2002 CN: 02000042 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: DOB's DATE: 02/03/2002 22:44:0 OFFICER: Flandrich, L 2229 LOCATION: Wentworth Park SYNOPSIS: Arrived and advised to shut down lights and lock warming -house up. Individual stated the person who was there to open had left and not returned. 10-8 CN: 02000483 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: Suspicious Occupied Vehicle DATE: 02/13/2002 10:33:0 OFFICER: Rosse, T 2237 LOCATION: Rogers Lake Park SYNOPSIS: On 02-13-02 at 10331irs, I responded to the above location concerning a suspicious occupied vehicle. DICTATED. CN: 02000506 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: DOB's DATE: 02/15/2002 16:15:0 OFFICER: Rosse, T 2237 ')CATION: Friendly Hills Park SYNOPSIS: On 02-15-02 at 1615 hrs, we responded to the above location concerning DOB's in the park . The complainant advised the DOB's looked like they were getting ready to fight. Prior to our arrival, the DOB's left the area in a maroon caprice and Scanting. UTL/OOA CN: 02000635 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: Disorderly Conduct/ Fight DATE: 02/27/2002 15:12:0 OFFICER: Patrick, S 2231 LOCATION: Rogers Lake Park SYNOPSIS: Dispatched on a report of a large group of teens at Rogers Lake Park, and that there was a fight in progress. While enroute there were dozens of cars that were driving away from the park. One car that was located at the park was occupied by one subject who was fighting. Information was obtained as to who the two fighters were and the next day contact was made with the two and citations were issued for disorderly conduct. See taped statement.