Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 04/02/2007

Home

. Ms. Pierson highlighted an informational event coming up on April 19-20, Will Abeger, a National Conservation Finance Officer, will be coming to meet with Minnesotans. In June, Steve Glacier, who has managed many campaigns, will come to Minnesota to educate about how to run a campaign. . . Board Member Sibilski commended her for being very informative. He asked where to go for sources for campaign fundraising. Ms. Pierson suggested building a budget around who you need to reach and what it's going to cost. That gives a sense of how to approach the fundraising aspect. In away, giving to a land and water conservation campaign is like a venture capital investment. Similar to any other private fundraising campaign, she suggested having a few key donators with a pyramid strategy. She stated that you clearly want to have higher targets for certain levels than you actually receive. She stated that in Plymouth they had extremely strong voter support in public opinion polling, and had very minimal campaign needs. Andover had strong voter support shown in early public opinion work, and similarly they had less campaign fundraising needs. She stated. the campaign base will depend on how challenging the hurdles are to overcome. Board Member Sibilski asked Ms. Pierson to expand on other means cities have besides bonding. Ms. Pierson stated that TPL did a research study with Kennedy and Graven. It looks at what financing tools are legally available to Minnesota cities. Sales taxes can be increased but the state legislature needs to approve that. The cities of St. Cloud and Bemidji have done that successfully. Bonding against property taxes is the most common. It is fiscally prudent in Minnesota to do that. If you decide to budget for it annually, then all the property on the County level is subject to that. If you do a ballot measure, agricultural land and seasonal/recreational property is not subject to it. That narrows the tax base somewhat. Property taxes are probably the most common source, in part, because they can generate more and there's more public support. Some other areas are deed taxes. The more narrow the revenue source is, the less public support and more likely organized opposition. Board Member Sibilski asked if there was an analysis about why some of the ballots didn't pass. Ms. Pierson stated that they learn more from the ones that don't pass. Board Member Sibilski asked about the committee and who can campaign. He stated the city is limited on how much they can put support behind a ballot measure. He asked how to campaign for this. Ms. Pierson stated that it can run afoul of campaign law. The Trust for Public Lands strongly recommends that a jurisdiction can provide people with information, but they cannot endorse the measure. She recommended there be an independent committee to EnviroIimental Policy Board! April 2, 2007 Page 6 of 14