Correspondence Section
Correspondence
Section
Hoffman, Todd
Subject:
Gerhardt, Todd
Wednesday, January 18, 20067:54 AM
Gregory, Dale; Hoffman, Todd; Wegler, Mike; Oehme, Paul; Haak, Lori; Aanenson, Kate;
Asleson, Don
FW: A Thank you to Don & Dale & Mike W
From:
Sent:
To:
Grea t job!!!!
TG
-----Original Message-----
From: forgiveness@mchsi.com [mailto:forgiveness@mchsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:04 AM
To: Oehme, Paul; Gerhardt, Todd
Cc: Asleson, Don
Subject: A Thank you to Don & Dale & Mike W
Dear Todd Gerhardt and Paul Oehme,
We are residents of Chanhassen and live on Cheyenne Trail. We are writing
to let you know how pleased we were with how the city worked with dealing
with the marked trees (dutch elm disease), on the street/property line. We
particularly wanted to thank Don Asleson and Mike W., and Dale and his work
crew.
In the summer when the trees were first marked and we didn't know why, I
was directed to Don Asleson, who not only explained what dutch elm disease
was, he came to our property to answer our questions and discuss prevention
of other nearby trees, as well as helping us identify which trees were elm
trees. I was impressed with both his knowledge and his thorough and
courteous response.
This January, Dale and his work crew cut the marked trees in our
neighborhood. We were very impressed with not only the skill and expertise
of his crew, but the professional knowledge Dale exhibited. It was a
pleasure talking with these fine people and the care and craftsmanship they
show in their work was greatly appreciated.
I have copied Don on this email but I do not have an email address for
Dale, so if you could let him know we were so pleased with his work and
supervising, we would appreciate it.
Additionally, last spring when there was a severe lightning storm, a tree
overhanging the street was struck, and the city was fast to cut the
dangling limb. Mike W. from public works saw that it was taken care of. (I
did not see Mikels email address on the Chanhassen website, but he has
overseen street repairs in the past, as well, and has always been a great
pleasure to deal with.)
It is so nice to see Chanhassen take pride in its work, and such fine
people doing it.
Thank you
Gina & Alfred Berry
z
o
~
rJ).
rJl
~
~
~~
00
Uu
~&'a
~
~~
<u
~z
u<
&'a~
~~
~~
~
<
~
In
o
o
N
"C
~
"C
c:.... =
o ~
-
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5< r- C'l ~ C'l C'l l/') l/')
(j ~ \0 0\ 00 0\ 0\ r- r-
~ =
~~
~
~
~
(jo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
;>N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ON
Z
-
(jlr) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ON
-
~l' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
OJ)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
=N
<
b\C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
~
=00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
=N
~
;>.
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
~\C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
<
~
~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
.eN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
=lr) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~N
,,-.,
00
0
-
"<:t
I ,,-., ,,-.,
r::- OO ,,-., \0
00 "<:t 0 \0
~ ,,-., 0 0 0 0 - 0
"<:t -
~r- - ~ - - "<:t
= 0 "<:t "<:t :!- I
.s: - I I I I
"<:t OJ) "<:t
tI} I ~ C'l C'l 1-0 0 "<:t
tI} 0 0 0 ~ - 0
.~ ~ - - - ..0 :!- -
0 ~ :!- "<:t ~ :!-
- "-' >>
~ ~ [Jl 1-0 c.S ..c:: ~
0 c; ~ ~ 1-0 e- ~
u .Q :.g "0 ~
..c::
~ N ~ c/5 u ::l a
~ os. CI) ~
CI) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
s ~ '3 ~ :> ~ 0>
~
0 u ~ 6 ~ ~ ~
~ t':l 0... c/5 ~ ~
"""""
-d
1-0
o
U
~
1-0
~
U
~
~
"'d
~
2
~
~
l/')
r-
~
~
[Jl
~
::l
cr'
~
1-0
-
ou
~
::l
o
u
c-
.u
~
..c::
~
to>
o
"'0
v1
o
~
to>
I::
C':l
"'0
I::
~
~
:6
~
C':l
3-
bb
Seco...d EdifioH
TI.e .
ProxilMate
PRINCIPLE
, by
Joltn L. CrOlMptoH
Distinguished Professor
Texas A&M University
The Impact of Parks, Open Space and Water Features on
Residential Property Values and the Property Tax Base
~~~ .~~~~'~~.
-:'
10 Tue Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Vaues
by park staff or by a panel of residents
familiar with each or the sites. This scale is
defmed. primarily by the emotional response
of peoplein . a park's area, of influence. It
recognizes that a park's quality is defmed
by people's 'emotional response to it, rather
than only by its physical and tangible quali-
ties.In every.community there are fine, physi-
cally attractive parks that receive little use,
either because the infrastructure. orland land
uses around. it do not encourage use, or
because the. behavior of existing users dis-
courages others . from using it. Such parks
should not score highly on this . scale . and
are likely to be assigned to the "average"
category .
The two lowest. rated categories in. Ex-
hibit A are likely to generate negative proxi-
mate premiums and so will contribute nothing
positive to the tax base. There is. no empirical
literature to guide estimates of either the
mag-nitude or.the impact distance of negative
premiums. Thus, no estimate parameters of
them are included here. In'. a . system-wide
evaluation, these parks should be identified
as being opportunities available to the. com-
munity to enhance its tax. base if it invests
in them.
3. Based on. the results reported in the
monograph, the suggested premiums applied
to all single family home properties within
the 500. foot proximate area for each of the
three highest categories shown in Exhibit
A are:
Unusual excellence: 15 %
Above average: 100/0 .
i\verage: 50/0'
Mter reviewing the monograph, these . may
appear low to some readers because. several
of the most recent, technically strong studies
reported premiums in the 16%-22% range.
However, these were for the first block imme-
diately adj acent to the park and the premiums
declined for properties.. in the. second and'
'third blocks. . The proportionate premiums
suggested here in stage 3 are averages to be
used . for. ..all' properties . within the 500- foot
(three block) radius.
4. Any incremental. premium associated
with green way trails i.e., trails that are not
part of. visually appealing park or open space
Exhibit A Park Quality Scale for Determining Proximate Premiums
i
1 a Tbe.L~pact of Parks and Open Space 011 Property Vanes
is also likely to give public agencies a stronger
negotiating position. for securing such ame-
niti.es. 'whendealing with . private .proposals.4
For many people their home is theirprinci-
pal investment. Thus,. data that provide home-
buyers . with information enabling them to
make informed decisions about the relative
merits of apparently similar. properties . have
substantial practical value. In this context, "A
demonstration that park proximity premiums
are a resilient characteristic of the market and
not just a preference of the individual home-
owner transforms what was a costly consump-
tion choice into an investment" (p.19).3
THE PROXIMATE PRINCIPLE
Similarly sized, aged and designed homes
often have very. different values indifferent
neighborhoods. It has been pointed out that
investments by public entities in capital proj-
ects frequently area major factor in these valu-
ation differences:
A new highway interchange, for ex-
ample, generally increases the value
of nearby property because it in-
creases its accessibility. Conversely,
a decision to close a school or a neigh-
borhood police station may decrease
the value of property in the neighbor-
h~od (p. 1).5
This monograph is concerned with the impact
of public investments in parks', green ways, and
open space on property values. It presents em-
pirical findings that researchers have reported
on these impacts to provide public policy mak:-
ers, appraisers, developers and homeowners
with information that wili inform their deci-
sions.
The premis'e that parks and open space
have a positive impact on proximate property
values derives from the observation that people
frequently are willing to pay a larger amount
. of money for a home. located close to these
. types of areas, than. they are for a comparable
home. Almost 40 yearsagb, the National Rec-
reation and Park Association in an early edition
of its Outdoor Recreation Space Standards
handbook commented:
. Real estate dealers have always drawn
attention to parks and playgrounds
near their properties for sale or rent.
Many of them ~ow that properly lo-
cated and planned recreation areas
have. definite dollars and cents effect
on the values of surrounding property.
Comprehensive .. figures have . never
been brought together but a number
of studies and observations show that
recreational features contribute to in-
creased valuations for property near
parks and playgrounds (p.28).6
If this observation is consistently verified by
research fmdings, then elected officials can be
assured. that owners of the enhanced property
are likely to pay higher property taxes to gov-
ernments because of the increase in the proper-
ty's appraised value. In effect, this represents
a "capitalization" of park land into increased
property values for proximate land owners. It
adopts the mechanism of market pricing to
assess the value of parks. This process of capi-
talization is termed' '.the proximate principle."
Conceptually, it is argued that the competitive
market will bid up the value of property just
equal to the. capitalized value of theoenefits
that property owners perceive they receive
from th~ presence of park and open space.
Economists refer to this approach as "hedonic
pricing." It is a means of inferring the value
of a non-market resource (a park) from the
prices of goods actually traded in the market
place (surrounding residential properties).
In some instances if the incremental
amount of taxes paid by each property that is
Context of the Issue CRAPTE:i 1 1 S
attributable to the presence of the park or open
space is aggregated, it vyiJl be sufficient to pay
the annual. debt charges required to retire the
bonds used. to . acquire and develop.. the . park.
In these circumstances, the park.is obtained at
no long term cost to the jurisdi~tion.
This principle is illustrated by the hypo-
thetical 50 acre park situated in a suburban
community shown in Exhibit 1-1. It is a natu-
ral, resource-oriented park with some appeal-
ing topography and vegetation. The cost of
acquiring and developing it (fencing, trails,
supplementary planting, some ~andscaping) is
$20,000 an acre, so the total capital. cost is $1
million. The annual debt charges for a 20 year
general obligation bond on $1 million at 5%
are approximately $90,000.
In Exhibit 1-2 annual income streams at-
tributable to the presence of the park that would
be available to service the bond debt are devel-
oped, based on three different sets of assump-
tions. The table at the end of Scenario A in
Exhibit 1-2 shows the annual incremental
property tax payments in the three.zones from
the premiums attributable to the presence of
the park amount to $98,000 given the as sump-
tions of Scenario A. This issufficient.to pay
the $90,OOOannuaI bond debt charges.
In scenariosB and C, the alternate assump-
tiorlSresult in arinlliUincremelltal property tax
payments in the three. zones attribu:table. to the
. presence . of t4e park of $196,000 and .
$100,800, respectively. In each case, this is
sufficient to pay the $90,OOO'anntial bond debt
charges. Clearly, changes in any of the four
assumptions listed in the scenarios of Exln'bit
1-2 will lead to different outcomes and readers
are invited to insert numbers. into these as-
sumptions that best reflect the context with
which they are concerned.
The alternate scenarios in Exhibit .1-2 also
illustrate ~at. the' proximate principle may be
less effective in suburban (Scenario A) than
in urban areas (Scenarios B. and C). In a. gar-
den-style suburban neighborhood, a park
would provide continuity and reinforce the im-
age of the neighborhood rather than provide a
contrast to its surroundings. However, there
will be fewer homes benefiting from proximity
to the amenity than in urban areas with denser
housing patterns.. Thus, if a. suburban park is
to deliver equivalent proximate impact to. the
Zone C
- -"
i
Zone B I
, , . I
Zone A .
! -4 .n I ~
1,210 yds ~
! ~ I
~ i
f N .
I <:> I
<:>
'<
'. f 50-acre Park g..
I
I ~ '.. !
;
j I
I
f . !
I i
!
Exhibit 1-1 Layout of a 50 acre Natural Park and the Proximate Neighborhood Area
20 The Impact oi Parks and Open Space on Property Vaues
Scenario. A
1. If properties around the park' were 2,000 square feet homes on half acre lots (40 yards x 60 yards)
with 40 yard frontages on the park, then there would be 70 lots in Zone A (30 lots along each of the
1,210 yard perimeters and 5 lots along each of the 200 yard perimeters). Assume there are also 70
lots in Zone B and C.
2. Assume total property taxes payable to city, county, and school district are 2% of the market value
of the property.
3. Assume the market value of similar properties elsewhere in the jurisdiction beyond the. immediate
influence of this park is $200,000. .
4. Assume the desire to live close to a large natural park creates a willingness to pay a premium of
20% for properties in Zone A; 10% in Zone B; and 5%, in Zone C. (The review of empirical studies
in chapters 2 and 3 suggests these values are a reasonable point of departure.)
Incremental Aggregate amount
Market. value Incremental Total property taxes of property tax
of each value attributed property taxes attributed to increments given
Zone home to the park at 2% the park 70 home sites
Outside the park's
influence $200,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $0
A (20% premium) $240,000 $40,000 $4,800 $800 $56,000
B (10% premium) $220,000 $20,000 $4,400 $400 $28,000
C ( 5 % premium) $210,000 $10,000 $4,200 $200 $14,000
$98,000
Scenario B
If . the context is changed from a.. suburban community to an urban community, and the properties are
townhouses constructed at a density of 8 per acre, then stage 1 of the calculation scenario would be revised
as follows:
1. If properties aroupd the park were 2000 square feet townhomes on lots sized 20 yards x 30 yards
with the 20 yard frontages on the parle, then there would be 140 lots in Zone A (60 lots along each
of the 1210 yard perimeters and 10 lots along each of the 200 yard perimete~)
If the remaining assumptions (points 2,3 and 4) are the same, then the aggregate annual incremental
revenue attributable to the park will be $196,000.
Scenario C
If the park is less attractive than assumed in scenarios A and B, so the premiums in stage 4 are 10% for
Zone A, 5% for Zone B and 3% for Zone C, but the remaining assumptions of scenario. B are the same,
then the aggregate incremental annual revenue attributable to the park will be $100,800.
':!
26 The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Vaues
p
a
k
S
1
.t
e
....~..
".
....
'.
>.
'.
".
.......
.............
.........
Increase in property value
b
,
,
,
.........
....,
NormalitvLine
Decrease in property value
.. Distance From Park
,..
Exhibit 1-5 Alternate Scenarios Reflecting the Range of Impacts. that Parks and Open Spaces
may exercise on Property values
We have many poor neighborhoods
in the South Bronx near parks. But
the parks are not helping them. If you
put money into a park, chances are
that you will improve one portion of
the neighborhood. But if the park does
not have proper security and mainte-
nance, it becomes a liability for
nearby homes(p. 9).18
positive impact on property value may
extend out to 2000. feet.
b) A smaller. high quality, natural re-
source based, community level park,
with some charm and dignity,. that is
well-maintained and regarded with af-
fection by the community. The mea-
surable positive impact on property
values may extend. out 500 feet.
c) A large, intensively lised park with
athletic facilities,. floodlights, noise,
congestion at the entrances, and exten-
sive traffic. These factors lead to nega-
tive values on properties in close prox-
imity to the park, but benefits accrue to
those living away from the immediate
nuisance but within easy. access, typi-
cally two or three blocks away.
d) A dilapidated, dirty, blighted park
with decrepit facilities and broken
equipment in which undesirable
groups congregate. The community
The second conclusion is summarized in
Exhibit 1-5 which recognizes that both positive
and negative impacts on property values are
possible. The exhibit shows four alternate sce-
narios reflecting the range of impacts that parks
and open spaces. may. exercise on proximate
property values:
a) A large, high quality, natural resource
based, signature park that is well-
maintained to which residents are pas-
sionately attached. The measurable
Tbe high profile of the proximate principle
in the collective public psyche waned from the
1930s onwards. There were occasional refer-
ences to it in the 1940s and 1950s. For exam-
ple, in their Home Builders' Manual for Land
Development, the National Association of
Home Builders noted, ., 'In the vicinity of park
and recreation areas enhanced values of build-
ing sites up to 15% to 20%, with a high level
of sustained value over the years,are not un-
common experiences" (p. 85).1 However, such
references were cOIlspicuously .scarceo ..The
proximate principle virtually disappeared from
mainstream discussions of parks. There appear
to have been two reasons for this.
The fust reason was an evolution in local
government spending patterns. and priorities.
In the early days of municipal governments,
these entities spent money only on a limited
set of core services such as sewers, roads, po- .
lice and schools: "As local governments as-
sumed responsibilities for an ever-widening
array of social welfare functions, the park pro-
portion of the budget declined automatically 0
Further, parks were once .loaded with social
tasks now performed by other reform institu-
tions: juvenile courts, public housing, urban
CHAPTER 3
THE LATER EMPJRlCALSTUDIES
planning, pollution control" (p. 176). 2 Other
commentators observed:
Mter W orId War II and with the rise
of the suburbs,cities refocused their
planning and left parks in a spiraling
50-year decline. Many of the ideas
regarding the role parks play in city
planning and community. socializa-
tion were lost. More importantly,
ideas . about measuring park access,
assuring equity, and' meeting tl1e
needs of changing users languishe~
with the erosion of budgets for city
parks (po 5).3
The reduction in park budgets caused by
this "crowding auf' resulted in an inexorable
decline. in expenditures on the maintenance
and renovation of parks. In many communities,
parks were allowed to decay. Many of them
became dispirited vacuums of dilapidated open
space characterized by vandalized equipment
and vegetation, rubble, and trash, that were
inhabited primarily by people engaging in so-. .
cially. deviant behavior. It .could no longer be
"78 The 1.mpact of Parks and Open Space on Property Vanes
mate. increment of property tax revenue ac-
crued to taxing entities other than the city, i.e.
county, school district, and other independent
districts. Thus, the incremental return to the
city alone was not sufficient to pay the costs
incurred by the city in purchasing the green-
belt. This creates a major policy issue. How-
ever, it should not inhibit the purchase of park
and open space areas because overall economic
benefits accrue to taxpayers whose revenues
fund all the governmental entities.
Resolution of this conundrum requires one
of two actions. The [lIst requires that a city
be prepared to accept the inevitable criticism
that is likely to occur when it raises taxes to
purchase the land, knowing that its taxpayers
indeed will benefit when return on the invest-
ment is viewed in the broader context of total
tax payments to all governmental entities. The
alternative strategy is to persuade the other
taxing entities to jointly fund purchase of the
open space areas, since all will reap proximate
tax revenue increments deriving from them.
A study undertaken in Worcester, Massa-
chusetts, in the early 1980s examined the rela-
tionship between four parks and the values of
all properties sold within a 4,000 foot "radius
of each park during the preceding five years
(n == 170).14. 15, 16 The multiple listing service
from which the study's data were derived rec-
orded actual sale price of a house, along with
infonnation on other characteristics that might
effect the sale price including lot size, number
of rooIDS, age, garage, taxes paid and condi-
tion. Distance to the park in feet was added to
this set of variables.
The results showed that, on average, a
house located 20 feet from a park sold for
$2,675 more than a house located 2,000 feet
away. However, 80% of the aggregate increase
in value was derived from properties located
within 500 feet of the parks. Effects could not
be traced beyond 2,000 feet from the parks.
Using. these data, it was estimated that the
aggregate property value increase attributable
to these parks was $3.5. million.
The impact pf<two parks on the values of
proximate residential developments in Dayton
and in Columbus, Ohio, was reported in
1985.17 The 170 acre Cox Arboretum in Day-
ton was a wooded open space containing spe-
cialized herb, ornamental and other plant gar-
dens. Its impact on an adjacent fairly new sub-
division of 300 properties was assessed. The
152 acre Whetstone Park in Columbus, con-
tained ballfields, trails, natural areas and a 13
acre rose garden, and it was adjacent to an
older residential ar~a. In both cases, samples
of approximately 100 residences were used in
the study.
The regression analyses indicated that for
every additional foot of distance a property
was located away from Cox Arboretum and
Whetstone Park, the selling price decreased
$3.83 and $4.87, respectiyely.The average dis-
tance <;>f properties in the study areas were 814
feet. and 973 feet from Cox Arboretum and
Whetstone Park, respectively, and these prop-
erties yielded proximate premiums of $3,100
and $4,700. Given the average selling prices of
properties in the residential areas were $58,800
and $64,000, the park premi:um represented
5.1 %. in the Cox Arboretum subdivision and
7.3% at the Whetstone Park residential area.
In neither case was an assessment made of
how this . average premium . varied between
properties immediately abutting the parks and
those located (say) 2,000 feet- away, which
presumably. were much less impacted by the
parks.
An empirical investigation in Salem, Ore-
gon,in 1986 reported that open space in the
form of greenbelt at the fringe of the urban
area exerted an influence on urban land values
that extended inward from the urban boundary
about 5,000 feet.1S. The researcher concluded
that urban land adjoining farmland zoned ex-
clusively for agriculture was worth $1,200 per
acre more than similar land 1,000 feet away.
Tne Late"r Empirical Studies CHAPTER 3 81
25%
20%
E
...
EL 15%
~
l.o
~
....
:::
~ 10%
t.I
l.o
~
Pol
5%
0%
<:;:)
~
c
C
M
c 0 0 c 0 0 0 c c 0 c
0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
c 0 10 C'l "l t--. ~ ("t) IF)
II") t-- 01
...... .... ('f ('f ~-
Travel Distance to Park, in feet
Exhibit 3-5 Impact of Proximity to Parks (14 Neighborhood Parks, Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex)
ment and construction costs, and more expen-
sive operations. costs over time. The scenario
of a set of smaller parks rather than one large
park may be more appealing to developers who
do not have to incur the additional ongoing
maintenance costs than to governmental enti-
ties who do.
A large data set to measure the impact of
the proximate principle was assembled for the
city of Portland, Oregon. It was comprised of
16,636 single family home sales during a three
year time period. The mean home sale price
was $66,198 ( 1990 dollars) and the average
size was 1,396 square feet. The impact of parks
on property within ~ 1,500 foot radius was
measured. It was estimated that a block was
200 feet, so the 1,500 foot (0.28 mile) radius
reflected an average distance of approximately
7.5 blocks.
Results from these analyses were reported
in two different papers. In the fust paper the
193 public parks were not differentiated by
type.22.Two statistical models were applied to
the data set. The authors concluded that homes
within 1,500 feet of a public park increased
in value by $2,262 (3.5%) or $845 (1.2%)
depending on the model used, compared to
property outside the 1,500 foot area. When the
impact of different distances within the 1,500
foot radius was evaluated by the two models,
the premium values ranged from $5,023
(7.6%) and $3,527 (5.3%) for properties within
100 feet of a park, to $2,109 (3.8%) and $1,004
(1.5%) for properties that were located 1,301.
to 1,500 feet away.
In the second paper using this same data
set, the authors clas.sified the public parks into
three different categories: urban parks, natural
area parks, and specialty parks/facilities.23
These are defined in Exhibit 3- 7. The results
showed that being within 1,500 feet of a natural
area park accounted for $10,648 (16.1 %) of
a home's sale price holding all other factors
constant. The impacts of urban parks and spe-
The Later Empjrical Studies CHA~TE~ S 83
_fiitJr
. .::~, ~ ..:;:~. .'''': =~. ~i :::: ~. :~;;
~~:~fl ~t#~ril~ftU~~:.
.- "':~~{i:~iifJ?j
.7:'.' _';..~;:; li.:::,,~
:'~::;:.:~.:1,:';:.:r~1
", jmj1~~~~wJ.if"
~f~ir:li :L:t~;: .
Open Space Type
Urban Park
Definition
More than 50% of the park is manicured or landscaped and developed
for nonnatural resource dependent recreation (e.g., swimming pools,
ballfields, ~ports courts).
Natural area park
More the:m50% of the park is preserved in native andlor natural vegeta-
tion. Park use is balanced betWeen preservation of natural habitat and
natural resource-based recreation (e.g., hiking, wildlife viewing, boat-
ing, camping). This defInition includes parcels managed for habitat
protection only with no public access or improvements).
Specialty park/facility
Primary use at the park and everything in the park is related to the
specialty category (e.g., boat ramp facilities).
Variable
Urban Park
Specialty Park/facility
Distance::;200
Distance 201 - 400
Distance 401. - 600
Distance 601 - 800
Distance 801 - 1,000
Distance 1,001 - 1,200
Distance 1,201 - 1,500
$1,926
2,061
1,193
817
943
1,691
342
Number of observations 16,747
Natural Park
$11,210
10,216
12,621
11,269
8,981
8,126
9,980
$7,396
5,744
10,283
5,661
4,972
4,561
3,839
and Travis neighborhoods were 224,- 240 and
236, respectively.
Results of the study are summarized in
Exhibit 3-9. The table shows that the premium
for adjacency to the". greenbelt was highest in
the Barton neighborhood and that it repre-
sented 20% of the average price of all homes
in that neighborhood. The comparison crite-
non is important because all the homes im-
pacted by u1.e greenbelt are included in the
average price. If the comparison criterion had
been with houses beyond the direct impact of
the greenbelt (say 1,500 feet or more away),
then it. is likely that the. premiums shown in
Exhibit 3-9 would have been substantially
longer.
~
~:
,.
~
~
~" .
t
(
;
,.
TIle Evidence Relating to Greenway Trails CHAPTEiffi 4 113
Type of
Homeowner
Impact on.Home Saleability Impact on House. Price
No No
Positive N:eutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative .
Response Response
Single family
home owners
adjacent to the
trail (n=llO)
Single family
home owners
within one
block of the
trail (n=159)
Condominium
owners adjacent
to the trail
(n=100)
44%
200/0
22%
40%
27%
9%
8%
30%
52
24
15
30
9
48
7
16
52
36
1
11
21
51
2
26
Impact on home saleability Impact onhouse price
Type of Positive Neutral Negative Positive . Neutral Negative
Homeowner
Adjacent to 43% 26% 31% 33% 42% 25%
the trail
Within 2
blocks of the 75 25 0 43 57 0
trail
A hrrger proportion of real estate agents
than residents perceived a negative impact on
residences adjacent to the trail, but they were
still outnumbered by those who saw the trail
as having a positive impact on both house price
and on home saleability (Exhibit 4-4). None
of the 75 agents surveyed perceived the trail
to have a negative impact on properties located
witlJ.in two blocks of the trail but not adjacent
to it. Indeed, their average view was that these
properties sold for an average of 6% more
because of the. trail.
Not a single resident who was surveyed
felt that the trail should be closed, and almost
two-thirds of residents believed the trail en-
hanced the quality of life in the neighborhood.
The authors of the report concluded:
In summary, this study indicates that
concerns about decr.eased property
114 The Impact of Parks and Open Spaee.on Property Vanes
"
Impact of Trail on Property Value
Increased Value
No Effect
Decreased Value
No Response
Root River Trail
Luce Line Trail
14%
62%
14%
10%
580/0
32%
9%
1%
values, increased crime, and a lower
quality of life due to the construction
of multi-use trails are unfounded. In
fact, the opposite is true. The study
indicates that multi-use trails are an
amenity that helps sell homes,. in-
crease property values and improve
the quality of life (p. 3).
Exhibit 4-5 shows results of a study which
reported adjacent residents' attitudes to. the
Root River and the Luce Line trails in 1988
in Minnesota.8 Both these trails were converted
from abandoned railroad rigP.ts-of-way. The
sample was relatively small (n = 74) but only.
11 % of the sample believed. the trails lowered
their property values. The survey also reported
that landowner concerns prior to trail develop-
ment were greater than the subsequent prob-
lems that they actually experienced.
In 1992, the N:ational Park Service com-
missioned a study of the impacts of three trails
which were formed from rail right-of-ways.9
They were (1) the 26 mile Heritage Trail in
Iowa from Dubuque to Dyersvi11e which was
rural; (2) the Tallahassee to St. Marks Historic
Railroad State Trail in Florida which runs for
16 miles through a mix. of settings, primarily
rural but including the town of W oodville and .
several areas of single family home develop-
ment; and (3) the 7 mile Lafayette-Moraga
Trail which featured in the earlier 1978 East
Bay study (Exhibit 4-2), and passes through
heavily developed, relatively affluent subur-
ban areas.
Similarly sized samples were drawn of
property owners who lived adjacent to each
trail and those who resided within quarter of
a mile but not adjacent to it. Response rates "
to the eight-page self-administered mail ques-
tionnaire ranged from a high of 750/0 on the
Heritage Trail to a low of 58% on the St. NIarks
Trail with an overall response rate of 66%. In
addition, telephone interviews with 25 realtors
and appraisers were undertaken in two of the
three trail areas, while 17 were interviewed in
the less developed Heritage Trail area.
The property owners' responses shown in
Exhibit 4-6 indicated that there was relatively
little difference in the trails' perceived impacts
on property values between those living adja-
cent and those residing nearby .At the gener-
ally rural Heritage and St. Marks trails, be-
tween 73 % and 90% of respondents reported
that the trails had no impact on their property
values. Along the suburban Lafayette/Moraga
Trail, a much larger proportion perceived there
"to be an effect and most thought it was positive.
Overall, only 7% of adjacent homeowners and
2% of nearby LafayettelMoragaresidents
thought the trails .1owered the value of their
property.
Realtors and appraisers both believed the
trails would have little effect on property val-
ues (increases or decreases in value) .or salea-
bility (home sells faster or slower). Again,
120 The Impact oi Parks and Open Space on Property Vaues
central feature of their lifesty Ie,. so . access. to
trails far outweighs the perceived potential
negative outcomes. These dichotomous life-
styles suggest why some are likely to respond
positively to trails, while others remain more
circumspect.
Although the sample sizes of many of the
reviewed studies were small, the consistent
pattern emerging from them and the diversity
of milieus in which they were conducted, en-
ables a reasonable level of confidence to be
placed in generalizations drawn from them.
Across the studies there was broad consensus
that trails have no negative impact on either
the saleability of property (easier or more diffi-
cult to sell) or its value. There was a belief
among some, typically between 20% and 40%
of a sample, that there was a positive impact on
saleability and value. However, the dominant
prevailing sentiment was that the presence of
a trail had no impact on these issues.
The challenge for managers is to design
trails to alleviate concerns about loss of pri-
vacy. The issue was encapsulated in the fol-
lowing statement from one' of the studies re-
viewed:
A home with a trail running very close
behind it with no fencing or screening
could be affected adversely, while an
identical home with private trail ac-
cess across a well screened yard might
be much more desirable as a result
Several professionals. discussed the
impact of the trails as a "mixed bag,"
where the benefits of convenient trail
access and living. near undeveloped
open space had to be weighed against
some loss of privacy for adjacent
properties. They felt the relative im-
portance of these positive and nega-
tive impacts depended on the situation
of each particular property and the
feelings of each potential buyer
(p.111-15).9
Greenway trails take multiple forms4,18
and. at this time there is little understanding of
what aspects of a greenway cause impacts on
property values. The discussion in chapter 3
showed that both design and use characteristics.
were likely to have a substantial differential
effect on the impact of parks on property val-
ues, but there has been no empirical verifica-
tion of this in the context of green way trails.
Most people intuitively accept that prox-
imity to a park or golf course often has a posi-
tive impact on property, but this acceptance
does not extend to trails where any added value
accrues from access rather than vista. Thus, it
seems likely that there will be an expanded
number of trail impact studies commissioned
in the coming years reflecting the growth in
. greenways development, because some resi-
dents will invariably be concerned about their
potential for negative impacts on existing
n~ighborhoods. Commissioning these studies
is a necessary defensive strategy that greenway
advocates have to support if they are to allevi-
ate the legitimate. concerns of neighborhood
oppone~ts.
References
1. Little, Charles E. (1990). Greenways for
America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity. Press.
2. The President's Commission on Ameri-
cans Outdoors (1987). Americans out-
doors: The legacy, the challenge. Wash-
ington' DC: Island Press.
3. Moore, Roger L., Alan R. Graefe, & Rich-
ard J. Gitelson. (1994). Living near
greenways: Neighboring landowners' ex-
periences with and attitudes toward rail-
trails. Journal of Park and Recreation Ad-
ministration 12(1), 79-93.
CHAPTER 7
THE,ROLE OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE LANDS IN
REDUCING TAXES
THE PREVAILING MYTH
Previous chapters of this monograph have
reported empirical evidence that overwhelm-
i,ngly supports the proximate principle. How-
ever, in urban contexts where land is in rela-
tively short supply, the question may not be
whether to invest in parks and open space per
se, but rather whether such an investment is
likely to yield a better return than if the land
were to be used, for development.
The conventional wisdom which prevails
among many decision-makers and taxpayers
is that development is the "highest and best
use" of vacant'land for increasing municipal
revenues. This conventional wisdom is rein-
forced by' developers who claim their projects
"pay for themselves and then some.?' They
exhort that their projects will increase'the mu-
nicipal tax base and thereby lower each indi-
vidual's property tax payments. Thus, while it
may be accepted that a park may pay for itself
from the extra property tax increments emanat-
ing from surrounding property, developers are
likely to point out that much larger property
tax revenues would accrue if, the space was
built-out with homes.
However, there is a counter perspective to
this argument and the two positions are articu-
lated in Exhibit 7-1. When open space or ag-
ricultural land is transformed into residential
homes, costs go up because "cows don't ride
the school bus." Each new house means more
children to enroll and bus to school, another
trash can to empty, another stretch of road to
maintain, a new sewer line,' another residence
to protect from fIfe and theft, and so on. 1
In the past two decades, the empirical evi-
dence overwhelmingly supports the counter
perspective, .viz, while residential development
is likely to generate significant tax revenue,
the cost ofprovidingpublic services and infra-
structure to that development is likely to exceed
the tax revenue emanating from it.
Despite this evidence, the myth that devel-
opment and growth is key to enhancing the
tax base and keeping taxes low resides deep
in the American psyche. There is a distinction
between sustainable development and growth.
160 The Impact of .Parks and Open Space on .Property Vaues
. .. "f{JD. -rfHNl< or:: -WE. BSNeFtaf-t> JiV\f>Acr CN ~
COMMU{'lt1Y..,.. ~N~ f<f3v'F3NUSSiNe1N.j06$i~
f\ltsW eu$lN~5SES) JNcre~. ~lc.. ~,,~ ~
Exhibit 7-2 Fordor4, p.79
Source: Roger tewis, The Regional Planning Partnership
.1
tax increases to existing residents almostinevi-
table.
Local government generally allocates the
costs of new facilities, infrastructure and ser-
" vice expansions on an average basis rather than
on an incremental basis. This means that the
new costs are spread among all taxpayers
rather. than charged only to those who . create
the costs. For example, if a city expands by 10
percent, it is likely that there will be additional
capital and operating costs for school facilities,
sewers, storm drainage, transportation,. roads,
water, fire and police protection, park andrec-
reation facilities, libraries, general government
offices, electricity, gas and solid waste dis-
posal.4 However, the new residents pay only
10% of these costs, while the remaining 900/0
r
will be paid by existing residents who were
sufficiently serviced by the existing infrastruc-
ture. Since in most communities the tax income
accruing to the community from the new
homes is likely to be less than the cost of these
additional services, the existing community ef-
fectively subsidizes the developers and the new
residents.
The net costs of growth are accentuated
with sprawl which technically is defined as
occurring when land is being consumed at a .
faster rate than population growth. For exam-
ple, in Wright County, Minnesota, the net an-
ual deficit between taxes paid and the. cost
f services required was found ,to be $490 for
eveloped home lots larger than one acre, and
$114 for quarter acrelots.7 Similarly, in a study
W
r ~.
The Role of Park and Open Space Lands II! Reducing Ta..'>.es CHAFTER 7 161
Exhibit 7-3 The Fiscal Impact of Developmenton Nantucket
of Lou do in County, Virginia, which is the fast-
est growing county in. theW ashington, DC
area, it was found that public costs were ap-
proximately.three times higher ($2,200) per
dwelling where the density was one unit per
five acres, than where the density was 4-5 units
per acre ($700 per dwelling).8 This reflects the
increased costs associated with such services
as school buses,. emergency service response
times, road provision and repairs, garbage
pick-up, and utilities when homes are spread
out.
However, the net deficit associated with
growth is largely independent of density. 4 Pub-
lic costs for services such as schools. remain
high irrespective of the quality of planmng, so
while sprawl is . likely to accentuate. the cost
deficit, a lack of sprawl is unlikely to remove it.
The most expensive growth cost that con-
fronts communities is schools. The national
average number of public school-age children
fora three-bedroom house is 0.67. Thus, there
will be an average of two school-age children
for every three houses (3 x .67 = 2), so 750
new residences are likely to require one new
school for the 500 students who move in. If
the total cost of land and construction for such
a new school is $14 million, then the cost per
house is $18,667. (Note, this is not the cost
per child!).4 In most jurisdictions, this cost will
162 The Impact of .Parks and Open Space on Property Vaues
t
Exhibit 7-4 The School Costs projected to be incurred if 1 00 acres of Open Land was transformed
to Residential Development: Example of the Souderton Area School District, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
.. ~t
The Role of Park and Open Space Lands in Reducing Taxes CHAPTER 7 163
be shared. by the whole community and not be
charged directly to the new homeowners or
their developers.
Exhibit 7-4 offers an example of the
sch.ooling co.. st ..th.a..t. w.o.u1d. b. e... incurred.. by. a
. .... ...'.. ...... ..... .. .. ..' ...... ................ ..... ..... ...
community in Pennsy~vania if a lOO-acre farm
was transformed into residential development.
It .shows that the pay-back periods forpurchas-
ing the development rights or for purchase of
the land for open space/parkpurposes . were
5.2 and 7.2 years, respectively. . The pay-back
periods are relatively short, but the schooling
costs would continue as long. as the homes
exist a~d. would. likely increase.. each year.9
Thus, communities can choose to pay for these
ever-increasing school costs, or they can elect
to spend the money, in part, to preserve se-
lected areas as open space or park land~
The city ofN aperville is a suburb of Chi-
cago with a population. of 150,000. Exhibit 7-
5 reports how the city made a conscious choice
to increase the available park and open space
land in order to reduce the schooling costs
associated with new development within its
boundaries.
Exhibit 7-6 summarizes the. differences
between the myth of residential development
Exhibit 7-5 Using Open Space to Reduce Taxes
and the reality. Although the ass~ption that
expansion will lead to a net gain. in l()caltaxes
is fiscally irresponsible, this myth. has fre-
quently thwarted..the conservation . efforts. . of
parkandop~n space advocates. The purpose '
of this . chapter. is. to expose the. development .
myth by reviewing the. substantial number of
empirical fmdings. that have . been reported on
this issue. The general thesis examined here
is. that saving . land . is often. synonymous for
local governments with saving money, because
the net cost (revenues minus expenses) of
maintaining and operating park and open space
land .is likely to be lower than the net.cost to
a conimunity associated With residential devel-
.opment. This is a long-term benefit ofpreserv- .
ing open space which is frequently overlooked
. in policy. decisions because market valuations
generally reflect only the short-term. benefit
of land.
EMERGENCE OF A NEW MUNICIPAL MATH
In 1956, Roland B.' Greeley, who was a
member. of the faculty of City and Regional
Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of
170 The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property .v aues
state aid.is associated.with schools and is for--
mula based on number of pupils, so it is attrib-
utable to residential development. Much of the
local, r~ceipts revenuewillbederivedJJ:'om
recreation fees and similar activities attribut-
able to residential development, while.' sales
taxes derive primarily from commercial land .
uses.
. Stage.. 5. Compare revenues to expendi-'
turesfo'r each land use category. A coniparison
of the data in Exhibits 7-8 and 7-9 is shown
in Exhibit7-10.The data inthis example show
a deficit in the residential category of approxi-
mately 5 %, so for every $1 of income residen-
tial development yields, it costs the municipal-
ity $1.05' to service it. In contrast, every $1 of
revenue: accruing from the open space cate-
gory, requires only 30 cents in cost of service.
The approach gives a snapshot of the fiscal
implications of land use based on current costs
and revenues. The procedure is designed to
supply enough infonnation for people to recog-:-
nizethe .potential. positive fiscal impact of
parks and open space. One outcome. that some-
times emerges from these relatively simple
studies is recognition of a need to commission
more expensive studies that offer greater so-
phistication and embrace fiscal impact projec-
tions of future built-but scenarios in a com-
munity.
Review of Empirical Findings
Exhibit 7-11:lists the results of 98 studies
that have used the American Farmland Trust's
approach to COCS.16 The studies were under-
taken by over 50 different research teams in 21
different states. The main commonality among
the studies is that most of the selected commu-
nities were relatively. .small and incorporated
farmland in their tax base.
For every dollar of revenue generated,
fanrnVforesUopenspace lands cost conununities
from $.02 in Carroll Township, Pennsylvania,
to $.99 in Servier County, Utah. Similarly, for
every revenue dollar generated by commercial!
industrial development, service costs ranged
,from $.05 in Bedminster Township, Pennsyl-
vania, to $L04fu Perry, Wisconsin. In the
residential sector for each tax dollar received
the range in cost of services was from $1.01
in Groton, New Hampshire, to $2.11 in Stew-
ardson Township, Pennsylvania. Among. the
96 studies, there was not a single instance
where. taxes from residential development
'were sufficient to cover the costs of servicing
this type of development in a community,
clearly demonstrating that residential develop-
ment is expensive and relies on other land uses
to balance local governments' expenditures. 16
Given the diversity of locations and re-
search teams involved, the results are remark-
ably c9nsistent. They confmn the results re-
ported by more elaborate conventional fiscal
impact studies, which consistently document
the net deficit of most residential development
and recommend attracting commercial and in-
dustrial development to offset these deficits.
However, they offer the additional dimension
of demonstrating the relatively positive fiscal
impact of farm and forestland, open space and
park land, when compared to residential land
use. These elements traditionally have been
omitted from fiscal impact analyses.
A. summary of the results reported in Ex-
hibit 7-.11 is provided in Exhibit 7_12.16 It
shows. the median cost per dollar of revenue
raised to provide public services to each of the
three different . land uses. Thus, for every $1
million in tax revenues these communities re-
ceived from farm/forest/open space uses and
from. industrial/commercial uses, the median
amount they had to expend was OIily $350,000
and $270,000, respectively, to provide them
with public services. In contrast, for every $1
million received in revenues from residential
developments, the median amount the commu-
nities had to expend to service them was
$1,160,000. The re~ults of these studies indi-
1 is I'h:t Impad of Parks and Open Spaee on Property Vaues
Exllibit7 -13 ... An illustrative Comparison of the Net Cost of Serving a Residential Development
and a .1'J attiral . Park Area
CONCLUSIONS
It has been sl1gges~ed that, "Co~uniti~s
striving to reduce the' ta"'( burdens on citizens
may not fully appreciate the increase in the
scope and level of s~rvices. that will have to
be provided to different categories of the land
use' , .. (p. 9)48 The costs and benefits of parks
and open space have largely. been ignored by
fiscal. impact studies in the past. The results
reported here provide evidence of the need to
inc1udeparks and open space in the fiscal and
economic discourse.
COCSanalyses have consistently reported
that over a wide range of residential densities,
and. especially in .rapidly growing communi-
ties, the public costs associated with residential
development exceed the public revenues that
accrue from it. The traditional belief that devel-
opmentpays its way is being discarded. The
emerging prevailing view is that few develop-
ments generate sufficient tax payments to pay
their way. Further, an analysis of property
taxes in Nlassachusetts concluded: (i) tax bills
.were lowest in towns with the most open space
per capita; (ii) towns where open space made
up a larger proportion of the tax base had lower
taxes, ,on-average, than most developed towns;
and (ui) 'towns -with the most permanently pro-
tected land had lower tax rates on- average.76
The procedures used in these studies were
intended by the American Farm1andTrust to
"simplify" the complex and expensive pro-
cess involved in undertaking traditional fiscal
impact analyses. The trade-off in using the
simpler procedures is some reduction in level
of. accuracy. However, the consistency of the
results, and .the .magnitude of differences be-
tween residential and. open space use, is so
striking that debate over nuances in the meth-
odology is . rendered redundant. The evidence
clearly indicates that preserving open space
can: be a less expensivealtemative to develop-
ment. The conclusion is that a strategy of con-
serving parks and open space is not. contrary
to a c~mmunity's economic health, but rather
is an integral part of it.
These types of findings provide park advo-
cates with a credible entre into the economic
development discussion and enable them to
position parks as being a meaningful compo-
nent. of economic development. By showing
their relative fiscal strength compared to resi-
dential development, advocates can refute the
notion that parklands are a drain on local re-
sources. The results challenge the assumption
that development of land is its "highest and
best use," which often thwarts park and. open
space advocates.
I
.
NEWS RELEASE
EMBRACE 0 PEN 5 PAC E
Dakota County Office of Planning
Friends of the Minnesota Valley
Friends of the Mississippi River
Great River Greening
Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Design Center
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Land Trust
Minnesota League of Conservation Voters
National Parks Service, MNRRA
Parks and Trails Council of Minnesota
Sierra Club, North Star Chapter
1000 Friends of Minnesota
Trust for Public Land, Minnesota
The McKnight Foundation
Media Contacts:
Cordelia Pierson
The Trust for Public Land
651-999-5312 direct
651-917 -2240,
Kristin Fischer
Himle Homer, Inc.
952.897.8208
Parks, Natural Areas Send Twin Cities Home Values Higher
New report encourages communities to consider fiscal implications of open space
MINNEAPOLIS (Nov. 10, 2005) - Being close to parks, wetlands, woods,
natural areas and other open spaces adds significantly to the price Twin Citians
are willing, to pay for a home. In fact, nearly two-thirds of Twin Cities'
residents-including those who have purchased a home in the past two years or
who intend to move in the next two years-would pay between 10 percent and
25 percent more for a home that was within walking distance to an open space.
These findings are from a new report that takes a comprehensive look at
the cost and value of open space in Twin Cities communities; The report was
sponsored by Embrace Open Space, a public education campaign to engage
citizens in the decisions that affect the future of open spaces in the Twin Cities
regIon.
The centerpiece of the report is an economic impact study and
evaluation, conducted by Wilder Research Chief Economist Paul Anton. The
study provides a more comprehensive examination of the cost and benefits of
open space than has been available before. Anton's study also includes a tool
that communities can use to help make a balanced evaluation of the cost and
return of open space.
-more-
· Nearly two-thirds
of residents would
pay between 10%
and 25% more for a
home within
walking distance to
an open space.
· By a 70%-24%
margin, residents
would support a
$30 per year
property tax
increase to raise
funds for
purchasing,
restoring, and
maintaining natural
areas in their
county.
· Residents reporting
they are "very
satisfied" with
nearby open space
are more active in
their communities.
. <,
,
Open Space Adds Value to Homes/Page 2
"Too often in fast-growing communities the land use debate is reduced to the cost of purchasing
land versus the potential income from taxes generated by development," said Anton. "However, as the
economic analysis demonstrates, the true equation is much more complicated. It is clear that the value
of open space to a community is reflected in many other ways, including increased property values.
The purpose of the study is to ~ve decision makers at the community level a more effective framework
to help evaluate the true costs and benefits of natural open spaces."
The economic impact study analyzes existing data and studies, and assesses what open space
adds to a community through higher property values and taxes, the cost of land acquisition and the tax
revenue lost when land is protected as a park or natural area or just left undeveloped. Although the
study doesn't reach conclusions that can be applied in all cases, it does support three key findings:
· A city making or updating its comprehensive plan may decide that it can afford to plan or
protect more open space when it considers the cost savings on storm water management, other
community services, and the taxes generated from the higher values of homes located near open
areas.
· A city considering a proposed subdivision may offer the developer a density bonus in exchange
for the builder's obligation to create and protect open space at a much lower cost to the city-
because of the avoidance of additional costs to protect the land and the increased taxes to be
paid by the additional housing units.
· A developed city that initially considers the purchase of a small, surrounded parcel of wooded
land as too expensive may change its decision when it considers the full financial implications
of protecting it (and may be able to protect it at lower cost through purchase of the development
rights or conservation easements.)
In addition to the economic impact study, a public opinion survey conducted by Decision
Resources Ltd, a Minneapolis research firm, provides insight into how much Twin Citians value open
space. Not only are people willing to pay a higher price for a home within walking distance to an open
space, but those closest to the real estate market - recent buyers or soon-to-be buyers - are willing to
pay the premium to be close to open space. These findings are particularly notable given today's high
real estate values.
"For the past ten years, the preservation of open space has been a major concern throughout the
Twin Cities metro," said Bill Morris of Decision Resources Ltd. "Time and again, referendums for
open space acquisition and preservation have proven extremely popular in surveys and at the voting
-more-
<II
.
Open Space Adds Value to Homes/Page 3
booth. This survey carries the importance of open space even further - to its clear value in the purchase
of homes, its role in strengthening citizen connectedness, and as a significant contribution to the overall
quality of community life."
Additional findings from the survey include:
· Among all metro residents, 71 percent said they would pay at least 10 percent more for a home
within walking distan~e of an open space. Among residents who have recently moved, 70
percent said they would pay at least 10 percent more; among those who intend to move soon, 69
percent said they would pay at least 10 percent more.
· The survey also measured the value of open space in terms of civic engagement. For example,
residents reporting they are "very satisfied" with nearby open space are more active in their
communities.
· Residents who are "very satisfied" with the amount of nearby amount space also are more likely
to have stronger ties to their entire community than others; 50 percent of those very satisfied
with the nearby open space say they feel a real tie to their city or township compared to 40
percent of all respondents who felt close ties.
· The value of open space also was measured through a parallel survey of Dakota County
residents. In 2002, Dakota County passed a referendum to raise property taxes for open space
acquisition and preservation. Most Dakota County residents still see great value in preserving
open space; for example, 73 percent agree with the statement, "even if the land acquired for
preservation is not in my immediate area, Dakota County should preserve open space as a
legacy for the future."
· Most Dakota County residents think the referendum funds allowed preservation to occur in key
parts of Dakota County. By a 47 percent-7 percent margin, residents agree that the referendum
allowed Dakota County to acquire and preserve open spaces in spite of significant development
throughout the county.
The complete economic impact study and survey will be presented to city and county
officials from throughout the metro area at 7:45 a.m. on Thursday, Nov. 10 at the Science
Museum of Minnesota. Media are invited to attend. The full report can also be downloaded
www.embraceopenspace.org after Nov. 10.
Embrace Open Space is a joint effort among Twin Cities organizations concerned about
protecting open spaces in the region. The campaign is designed to encourage Twin Citians to get
involved in local land-use decisions. For more information about Embrace Open Space, please visit
www.embraceonenspace.org.
-end-
EVEJ1
nilE bOGS
.FlieE
nALKD1G
1\.BOllrl.A.J1()FF-LKA.SJl:DOC PA$:r:
AU 111D1I1R'l>>ASJmA ~ECIOI1AL PA2K!
Bufthey need your help in raising some money to getthings rolling.
~oal)js to raise money for:
Fencing 18 acre site
Creating about a mile of walking trails
Creating aswimmin' hole
Creating a separately-fenced small dog area
You can help by donating $20, $50, $100 dollars or more (see other side )
City of Shorewood will match donations by Shorewood residents up to $5000 total
If we all chip in, we can make it A REALITY!
Fundraising Questions?
Don Kelly,Shorewood Parks Foundation, 952 843-0505
Ann Nye, volunteer, 952401-9015
Questions about the plans for the Off Leash Dog Area?
WWW.co.carver.mn.us/parks
Or call Carver County Parks at 952 466-5250
UIIAI1KS FOR 200R HKLP.......mOOF!
Shorewood Parks Foundation
PO Box 275
Excelsior MN55331
NONPROFIT ORG.
u.s. POSTAGE
PAID
MINNEAPOLIS MN
PERMIT NO. 2235
You can . help
make an on-leash
dog parka realilV
D Please accept my gift to help create an off-leash dog park atMinnewashta Regional Park.
DPlease contactme about other opportunities to support area parks.
Name:
City of Residence:
*
Address:
Telephone:.(
)
City:
State
Zip
e-mail:
* Donations by residents of the City of Shore wood will be matched by the City of Shore wood up to a total of$5,000.
Donations to the Shorewood Parks. Foundation, a 501 (c )(3) non-profit corporation, are tax -deductible.
Mail to: Shorewood Parks Foundation, PO Box 275, Excelsior MN55331
"
CHANHASSEN ROTARY CLUB
2006 DISTINGUISHED SERVICE A WARD
NOMINATION REQUEST
Dear Participating Organization:
The Chanhassen Rotary Club annually awards its Distinguished Service Award to
one Chanhassen resident who exemplifies Rotary's goal of "Service Above Self."
It is through the selfless and dedicated works of citizens \vho demonstrate their
passion to serve others that all of our lives are enriched. The 2005 recipient was
former Chanhassen mayor and Carver County commissioner Al Klingelhutz.
This year we are asking your organization to again be a part of the identification
and selection process for the Chanhassen Rotary Club's 2006 Distinguished
Service Award. Currently, we are requesting nominations of qualified candidates
for this honor from your organization and others throughout our community.
Enclosed are information about the Chanhassen Rotary Club's Distinguished
Service Award, the award criteria and a 2006 nominations form. F or each
nominee, please fill out the enclosed biographical nomination form and return it to
Chanhassen Rotary in the enclosed self-addressed envelope by February 28, 2006.
Nominations received after that date will not be considered for this year's award.
The Chanhassen Rotary Club Award Committee will select the finalists from all
timely nominations received. Your organization and others serving the City of
Chanhassen will then be asked to cast a vote for their choice from the list of
finalists. The recipient of the 2006 Award will be announced at the Chanhassen
Rotary Club's Spring Gala to be held at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum's
Visitors Center on Apri129, 2005.
Thank you for assisting the Chanhassen Rotary Club in recognizing those in our
city that truly represent our motto of "Service Above Self." If you have any
questions, please contact Pat Michaelson at (952) 442-2191x5026. We look
forward to receiving your nominations by February 28, 2006.
Sincerely,
Chanhassen Rotary Club
Distinguished Service Award Committee .
CHANHASSEN ROTARY CLUB
DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD
PURPOSE AND PROCESS
The Chanhassen Rotary Club annually presents its Distinguished Service Award to
one Chanhassen resident who exemplifies Rotary's goal of "Service Above Self." It
is through the selfless and dedicated works of citizens who demonstrate their passion
to serve others that all of our lives are enriched.
Rotary International is a worldwide organization of business and professional
leaders who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all
vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. Our club seeks to
recognize those Chanhassen residents who serve others in our city, state, country or
elsewhere in the world in a manner that is above and beyond the level usually
expected of all good citizens. This will allow us to honor them, encourage others to
follow their leadership, promote civic pride, and advance the ideals of our local
Rotary club and Rotary International.
Our friends and neighbors serve others in ways of which our club members may not
even be aware. Therefore, we seek individual nominations from the various non-
profit, religious and civic organizations located and operating within Chanhassen.
The Award Committee will evaluate each nominee's service history, and select two
to three finalists for that year's award. Ballots will be distributed to each identified
Chanhassen organization, and the finalist who receives the most votes will be
awarded that year's Distinguished Service Award at the Chanhassen Rotary's annual
Spring Gala.
All nominees will be individually recognized for their service. All finalists will be
publicly recognized at the Spring Gala and will receive a framed certificate. Each
Distinguished Service Award winner will receive an individual award plaque and
have his or her name added to a publicly displayed commemorative award plate.
Our objective is to build a tradition within the City ofChanhassen. A tradition that
honors those who exemplify "Service Above Self'. A tradition that honors those
that live up to the award's name - the Chanhassen Rotary's Distinguished Service
Award.
CHANHASSEN ROTARY CLUB
DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD
AWARD CRITERIA
1. Candidates must reflect Rotary International's motto of "Service Above
Self'.
2. Candidates must be residents of the City ofChanhassen.
3. The candidate's service to others may be performed locally, domestically
and/or internationally.
4. Nominees may come from any occupation, including retired individuals
and "homemakers."
5. The service activity or activities prompting nomination are beyond the
normal scope of one's employment.
6. "Service Above Self' has been defined as: "any and all service above and
beyond the usual level required of all good citizens, which is performed
in a meritorious manner over a period of years, or would be considered
extraordinary service or a heroic act performed in anyone year or over a
number of years."
7. The nominee's service includes their contributions to one or more
organizations.
CHANHASSEN ROTARY CLUB
DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD
2006 NOMINATION FORM
Nominator's Name / Organization
Nominator's Phone Number
Nominee Name:
Home Address:
Employer:
Work Phone #:
Home Phone #:
On a separate page, please provide the following information for the nominee as succinctly as possible.
1. List nominee's major volunteer service activities with dates, offices and awards.
2. Statement of how the nominee has exhibited "Service Above Self."
3. In one sentence, please state why all ofChanhassen would be proud to recognize your
nominee's distinguished service to others.
To ensure the best representation of your candidate please submit a full and complete nomination form.
This form will be reviewed with the nominee for accuracy. Nominee may, in his or her sole discretion,
decline nomination.
Please return to Chanhassen Rotary's Distinguished Service Award Committee in the enclosed self-
addressed envelope or fax to (952) 442-6543 by 5 :00 p.m. February 28, 2006. Thank You!
Nominations must be received on or before February 28, 2006, in order to be considered.
BEST PRACTICES FOR PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION SUMMIT
CO-SPONSORED By MINNESOTA RECREATION AND
PARK ASSOCIATION & MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Join Us to discuss challenges and share ideas for
successfully managing, operating and maintaining
Minnesota parks, natural areas and outdoor
recreation areas!
April 4th & 5th, 2006 at the Minnesota Landscape
Arboretum, Chaska, MN
The summit is a first-ever event of its kind designed to bring together city, county
and state park and trail staff; non-profit conservation groups; academics and
consultants to:
· Learn about the latest trends impacting parks and outdoor recreation areas in
Minnesota
· Share perspectives on key challenges in managing, operating and maintaining
parks, natural areas and outdoor recreation facilities
· Learn about best practices currently in use
· Help identify gaps in best practices
· Network with peers who share similar challenges
The summit is a key part of a state-wide project on Best Practices for Parks and
Outdoor Recreation in Minnesota. The goal of this project is to identify, share,
document and communicate best practices for parks and outdoor recreation. The
outcome of the summit will guide the development and delivery of a series of
regional workshops on best practices. It will also guide development of a website for
sharing best practices in parks and outdoor recreation.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: LEAVE YOUR CARD OR CONTACT US!
Fostering a sense of community and
family (DNR photo)
Kathy Schoenbauer
Project Manager, MRPA
Tel: 763.571.1305 x105
kathys@mnrecpark.org
Emmett Mullin
Natural Resources Policy Planner, DNR
Tel: 651.259.5566
emmett. mu lIin@dnr.state.mn.us
E1ID-Y BIRD REGISTRATION!
1$19ef"for entire 2-day summit if you register before
~?fch 1 st, 2006!
l~ if you register after March 1 st, 2006.
Student and retiree rate $50 for entire 2-day
summit!
Preserving Minnesota's natural
resources
Providing recreational access to public
lands
Providing outdoor recreation
throughout the seasons
Managing invasives threatening native
species and scenic qualities
Providing educational and interpretive
opportunities
BEST PRAOICES FOR PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION PROJEO Is FUNDED By THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON MINNESOTA RESOURCES
f, _ '" ", U N IVERstF~::L()F"MI~N~iEslfjrnT;~::T'~'-:~-'-_.:'-~-'~~-"..~._~.
I,,: " , ,', '".:,.,' ',:", ,: "", , ""., , c,::'-:<;;';' , ."
I SCH66tOF pUBbc~H~~f"ij~<'":;:"XSCH6oL"" .
! - Divisio,~;p"Epide.miology'& 'CQrnmunify}i'~ < ':;/';~\Dlvi~ibn:'c;i:' R$~~"
L .. "".."<,,, ,', _,: .0:,," ,,", "'\,," '....' '. ,", """"./:" ,','" ' ',,',' "".",.,,""..' ",,'"
r .1300:$. :gec;dndStr~et #300 ' ".,.' '\;"~>' ,: " " ,. .:', ,':, ,.,' ,1900 Univ~rsi, '
L!1~8~~~()~IJs;.,.,"~~~.p~1~~~::",~"..~.L~:~~_L~:);":~"~2~" , ,.:~~L.:):--.~,,'~._~:.:JL~!~~:~P~~M~{~~
TOBACCO-FREE PARKS AND RECREATION STUDY
Summary of Findings
Park areas in Minnesota are used regularly by state residents. Tobacco use restrictions in outdoor
environments such as parks and recreation areas are being established in Minnesota and other states
across the U.S. The purpose of this study is to describe the support for tobacco-free park policies in
Minnesota. To learn more about the public's perceptions of these policies, we conducted a survey of
Minnesota residents. We also interviewed park and recreation professionals to ask specific questions
about tobacco-free policies in Minnesota.
Is secondhand smoke a problem?
Yes. Secondhand smoke is a recognized cause of acute and chronic diseases in nonsmokers, and is a
major source of indoor air pollution. Secondhand smoke is also responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung
cancer deaths and 38,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmoking individuals each year in the United States.
The most effective approach to reducing secondhand smoke exposure is to establish smoke-free
environments. Research has suggested that the adoption of smoke-free policies creates a change in
social norms around smoking, helps smokers reduce consumption or quit, and helps keep youth from
starting.
Public support for tobacco-free parks
A survey was sent to Minnesota residents by mail in summer 2004. Of the 1,500 respondents, 75% had
used any park area in the past month. Overall, 70% of those surveyed supported tobacco-free policies for
outdoor park and recreation areas. The attitude of Twin Cities metro area residents was not different from
residents living in other parts of the state. Respondents expressed support for tobacco-free policies to:
· Reduce litter in park grounds.
· Avoid the health effects of secondhand smoke.
· Discourage youth smoking.
· Establish positive role models for youth.
· Promote community well-being.
Preferences for tobacco-free park
policies among Minnesota residents, 2004
Prohibit all forms of
tobacco
Policy components
We also asked residents about the
components of tobacco-free park policies
(shown, right). Most people supported strong
policies that prohibit tobacco use in youth
areas, and asking policy violators to leave
park areas. Just over half (53%) of
respondents supported the prohibition of
tobacco use in all parks at all times. Smokers
were the only group generally less supportive
of these policies.
Prohibit tobacco in all
outdoor areas
Prohibit tobacco during
youth oriented events
Prohibit tobacco in outdoor
areas used by youth
Enforce policy by asking,
violators to leave
Enforce policy by giving
violators a file
0% 10% 20"10 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Golfers
Thirty-five percent of our sample were golfers. Most golfers (81 %) were non-smokers, and 74% of non-
smoking golfers supported tobacco-free park policies. We found that being a golfer did not make a
difference in support for tobacco-free policies, but being a smoker did.
How do park staff in communities with an existing park policy feel about the policy?
In the summer of 2004, we interviewed 257 park directors from cities and counties in Minnesota's 200
largest cities. Overall, 70 communities reported a tobacco-free policy, which represents 360/0 of
communities surveyed. Park directors with policies had positive experiences, as most reported that park
policies were "not difficult" to pass, and 900/0 would recommend such a policy to other communities.
Changes after implementation
When park directors were asked about changes after tobacco-free policy adoptions:
. 580/0 reported less litter in park areas.
. 740k reported no problems with policy violators.
· 880/0 reported no changes in park usage.
· For those reporting a change in park use following the policy,
71 % reported an increase in usage.
· Publicity about the policy was reported to be adequate (860/0),
and few (70/0) reported any negative publicity.
Difficulty in passing a tobacco-free
park policy, Minnesota 2004
Not at all
Enforcement difficult - 51%
Enforcement was an area of worry for nearly all park directors without a
policy. However, in communities with a policy, few park directors (260/0)
reported compliance problems. Staffing was an issue, as 740/0 reported
too few staff to enforce the policy and/or monitor all park areas..
Park director support
Out of the 257 park directors interviewed, nearly all personally
supported tobacco-free policies. Reasons for their support included:
. 960/0 wanted to establish positive role models for youth. Very difficult.. 3%
· 890/0 wanted to promote community well-being.
· 920/0 wanted to reduce youth opportunity to smoke.
· 920/0 wanted to avoid litter from cigarette butts.
Major Conclusions:
o The majority of Minnesotans support tobacco-free park and recreation policies.
o Park staff have experienced few problems and many benefits with the policies,
and overwhelmingly recommend tobacco-free policies to other communities.
This study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, Schools of Public Health and Kinesiology, in partnership
with Tobacco-Free Youth Recreation and the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association, and supported by the
Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco. For more information, contact study coordinator Liz Klein at
klein L@epLumn.edu or call (612) 626-1799.
~~O'TA RECR€11;
~m~
.... .......... .......... .......
December 2005