Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors back staff study of county role as holder of conservation easements
Summary
The Board heard a briefing on the county’s existing conservation easements portfolio and directed staff to prepare standardized guidance and a template to clarify when the county should accept or pursue easements and how to manage long-term stewardship.
Coconino County staff and the county attorney briefed the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 30 about the county’s current conservation-easement holdings and potential next steps. The board expressed general support for standardizing policy and asked staff to return with recommended guiding principles and a draft county easement template.
Parks and Recreation Director Cynthia Nemeth reviewed easements the county already holds or is asked to hold: Rogers Lake (held by Arizona State Parks), Fort Tuthill (portion under conservation), multiple parcels tied to Babbitt Ranches, the Museum of Northern Arizona easements (several contiguous parcels), and pending possibilities such as the Bull Basin Forest Legacy project and Gonzales Ranch transactions. Nemeth discussed pros and cons of easements, including permanence of restrictions, monitoring and stewardship costs, public-access choices, and impacts to tax assessment bases.
Deputy chief civil attorney Bill Ring described statutory permissibility for government entities to hold conservation easements and highlighted operational and stewardship tradeoffs when holdings are acquired piecemeal. Ring recommended standardizing the county’s approach to ensure consistent terms, anticipate stewardship fees, and clarify enforcement or third-party enforcement arrangements.
Supervisors generally supported staff returning with a set of guiding principles, an easement template aligned to county strategic priorities, and recommended clarifications about when the county should accept easements, require stewardship funding, or prefer third-party holders. No formal vote was taken; staff were asked to continue work and provide a recommendation for the board’s consideration at a later meeting.
Staff noted several pending opportunities where landowners are evaluating appraisals or negotiating donation/sale arrangements; the county’s decision-making framework would inform whether the county accepts those easements and under what terms.
