1. HR A 1 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land

2. HR A 2 Financing Open Space Protection in Stonington Alicia Betty 31 May 2006

3. HR A 3 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land -Introduction -The Case for Land Conservation -Stonington Fiscal Portrait -Bonding to Protect Open Space -Conclusion

4. HR A 4 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land The Trust for Public Land

5. HR A 5 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Transactions Park Creation Conservation Finance Research Conservation Vision Stewardship Conservation Continuum

6. HR A 6 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land PEAR Park Grandway, Lake County, 2005 Conservation Finance in Connecticut Ballot Measure Sampling* –South Windsor $4m bond (2005) –New Hartford $1.5m bond (2004) –Westbrook $2.4m bond (2002) –Middletown $2.5m bond (2002) –Woodbridge $4.4m bond (2000) *Town Meeting votes not included Legislation –Senate Bill 410 $27 m/year (2005)

7. HR A 7 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land The Case for Land Conservation

8. HR A 8 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Open Space and Land Conservation in Stonington Stonington encompasses 39 square miles (24,780 acres). Of that land, 15 percent is dedicated or managed open space. This includes public and privately protected lands. A 2002 survey of residents at a public meeting revealed that preservation of open space is the most critical issue for the town.

9. HR A 9 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Why Fund Land Conservation? Communities feel many effects from the loss of Open Space, including: –Decreased Quality of Life –Increased Demand for Costly Public Services –Degradation of Water Quality –Reduction of Wildlife Habitat

10. HR A 10 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Protecting Open Space makes fiscal sense

11. HR A 11 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Why Fund Land Conservation? Population: By 2010 an expected 18,741 persons A 10.8 percent increase from 1990 Development: housing permits average 81 per year, in the last six years, up from an average of 70 per year in the previous ten years. A steady increase to 79 last year from 30 in 1990.

12. HR A 12 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Why Fund Land Conservation? Local Funding is Critical to Success –Local Funding = Local Control –Local funding leverages private, state and federal money –State and federal money can be difficult to attain

13. HR A 13 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Stonington Fiscal Portrait

14. HR A 14 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Stonington Fiscal Portrait: General Fund Revenues

15. HR A 15 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Stonington Fiscal Portrait Expenditures

16. HR A 16 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Stonington Fiscal Portrait: General Fund Balance

17. HR A 17 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Stonington Fiscal Portrait: Bond Rating Bond rating is an analysis of the issuer’s financial condition Moody’s is a global credit rating agency that provides bond ratings Moody’s rating for Stonington is: Aa3 (high grade)

18. HR A 18 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Options for Open Space Protection

19. HR A 19 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Non-Revenue Options for protecting Open Space Partnering with local and national non-profits such as the Avalonia Land Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy or The Trust for Public Land Regulatory measures, such as subdivision open space set asides and fees in lieu of open space. Private funding, including charitable donations of development rights and/or protected land

20. HR A 20 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Funding Assistance for protecting Open Space State grants to municipalities for open space acquisition, up to 50% of fair market value Federal grants, NOAA’s Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, up to 50% of FMV Private funding, including charitable donations of development rights and/or protected land

21. HR A 21 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Bonding for Open Space Protection

22. HR A 22 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land G.O. Bonds: Background Currently, Stonington has roughly $53.6M in total debt outstanding –$31.3M to finance schools –$8.3M for Sewers –$6.8M for general purposes Stonington currently has no outstanding debt for Open Space

23. HR A 23 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Revenue Options for Open Space G.O. Bonds: Background With regard to statutory debt limits, Stonington has ample capacity to issue bonds

24. HR A 24 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Revenue Options for Open Space G.O. Bonds: Financing Land Acquisition

25. HR A 25 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Revenue Options for Open Space G.O. Bonds: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Provides a large pool of funding that allows immediate purchase of land while it is still available, and presumably at a lower price than in the future Distributes the cost of acquisition over time so that future beneficiaries also share in the burden. Issuance of G.O. bonds is a familiar technique for financing open space in CT Disadvantages Interest on debt increases total costs.

26. HR A 26 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Lump Sum Bonding Advantages –Provides entry into the marketplace –Establishes credibility with landowners –Increases opportunities to receive grants –Enables comprehensive, proactive approach

27. HR A 27 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Election History Examples of Recent Open Space Bonds in CT

28. HR A 28 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Election History Examples of Recent Open Space Bonds in CT

29. HR A 29 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Comparison of Bond Authorizations Lump Sum Approach –South Windsor Voters Approved $4M in 1996 $2M Issued after Authorization for Specified Parcels Remaining $2M Issued in 1999 for unspecified purposes, which facilitated negotiations with property owners, while also allowing them to leverage funding from state grant programs and private funding sources

30. HR A 30 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Comparison of Bond Authorizations Lump Sum Approach Continued –Glastonbury Issued $2 million in 1997 for specific properties In each subsequent year they would finalize negotiations after the bonds were issued: $2 million in bonds was issued in 1998, and $3 million was issued in 1999, 2001 and 2003. This totaled $13 million.

31. HR A 31 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Comparison of Bond Authorizations Lump Sum Approach Continued –Tolland Authorized $2 million for passive recreation and $1.3 million of active recreation in 2000. In 2003, the town approved a ballot measure to authorize another $2 million for passive recreation; properties still remain to be determined.

32. HR A 32 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Comparison of Bond Authorizations Lump Sum Approach Continued –Trumbull Authorized $20 million in bonds, and subsequently issued bonds based on parcels that had already been selected and negotiated. In some cases, the town had paid for properties with a bond anticipation note prior to bond issuance. $7.65 million in bonds was issued in 2000, $2.2 million in 2001, $4.5 million in 2002, and $.91 million in 2003

33. HR A 33 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Conclusion Loss of open space negatively impacts the community Local funding is the cornerstone of open space protection Stonington is in solid fiscal shape Bonds have the advantage of making money available immediately for land protection

34. HR A 34 © Copyright 2004 The Trust for Public Land Thank You! Alicia Betty Project Manager The Trust for Public Land (203) 777-7367 x1 Alicia.betty@tpl.org Thank You! Alicia Betty Project Manager The Trust for Public Land (203) 777-7367 x1 Alicia.betty@tpl.org