Laserfiche WebLink
Land Entity White Paper <br />November 30, 1999 <br />• Responsiveness to Local interests To what degree will it likely be responsive to <br />legitimate local concerns, issues and involvement? <br />• Efficiency. Will the entity likely operate in a cost - effective, timely and reliable <br />fashion in carrying out the business of implementing the broad Program <br />objectives and goals? How costly will it be to establish the various alternatives? <br />• Coordination and Communications The Land Entity will perform diverse tasks, <br />some of which will also be carried out on Program lands the Land Entity does not <br />hold and/or by different organizations. Effective coordination will be essential to <br />keeping these activities compatible. Effectively communicating with neighbors <br />and local governments regarding the Program and Land Entity activities will also <br />be needed to improve acceptance and buy -in, since property rights and land use <br />can be emotional issues. <br />Accounting and accountability. Since the Land Entity will receive funds from <br />the federal and state governments, the ability to satisfy complex accounting and <br />accountability requirements will be essential. <br />Flexibility in developing transactions The way in which land transactions are <br />negotiated is significant because there are a number of different options for <br />protecting land that relate to its priority for protection, landowner objectives, cost <br />and other factors. The negotiating entity must be able to utilize a full menu of <br />sophisticated techniques if it is to be successful and tailor transactions to meet <br />both landowner and Program objectives. A menu of potential land transaction <br />techniques is included in Appendix B. Many of the techniques identified involve <br />partial interests in property, such as leases or conservation easements, or may <br />require complicated tax planning such as bargain sales or land trades. As a result, <br />the land transactions necessary to provide a range of options to meet both <br />Program and landowner objectives, are often complex and involve specialized <br />expertise. The specialized nature and potential complexity of the real estate <br />transactions necessary to protect land effectively needs to be taken into account in <br />the design of the Land Entity. <br />The following six organizations or organizational structures are presented to describe a <br />range of alternatives available to serve as the Land Entity. Combinations of these <br />alternatives or a hybrid of one or more are also possible. <br />1. Existing State and Federal Agencies Establish a Joint Land <br />Program (JLP) <br />The three states and DOI would be the key entities to comprise an <br />intergovernmental Joint Land Program (JLP). Each of the states would designate the <br />division within state government to be responsible for representing the state. For <br />example, in Nebraska, the state might designate the Natural Resources Commission since <br />it is the operational agency most involved with the Program, or the Game and Parks <br />Commission. The intergovernmental cooperative agreement (or memorandum of <br />agreement) that adopts the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program could also <br />create the JLP as a component of that Program. A JLP could be, but need not be, <br />1R <br />