| Minnesota county governments manage 2.8 million acres of tax-forfeited land. This study focused on three county policy issues: funding of land management, timber sale procedures, and land ownership policies. For each issue, the study identified current county policies, developed new alternatives, and described impacts which new policies might have on county governments, on timber industries, and on nontimber outputs.;County land management is funded largely from sale or rental of tax-forfeited land, from sale of forest products, and from state in-lieu tax payments. Additional funding sources suggested by the delphi panel include revenue bonds, interest from investing land sale proceeds, user fees, higher stumpage prices, contingency fund, county general fund, higher in-lieu tax payments, and state grants.;Counties sell timber at negotiated sales and auctions. The largest sales cover 300 acres and last up to 3 years. Full payment is required before harvesting begins. Leases suggested by the delphi panel would cover up to 10,000 acres and have terms up to 20 years. Payment procedures would generally involve a down payment with the remainder due periodically after timber is cut. Alternatives for other components of a lease are also discussed.;The overall land ownership policy of counties is to retain most land, especially land in designated memorial forests, land bordering waterways, mineral deposits, and land productive for timber, wildlife, and recreation. Counties may sell land for commercial development, farming, or urban use. The delphi panel suggested that counties retain land suited for timber, recreation, fish, wildlife, and water access, and dispose of urban land. A variety of retention and disposal policies were suggested for low productivity timber land, land inside state or federal parks and forests, small parcels, mineral lands, peat deposits, and forest land suited for agriculture.;Current policies were identified by studying state statutes and documents, and by interviewing 14 county land commissioners. A delphi panel developed new policy alternatives and identified impacts which may result from each policy. Delphi panel members completed a series of three mail questionnaires.;Based on projected impacts given by the delphi panel, policies were recommended which may enable counties to increase timber sale revenue, employment, timber supplies, recreation, wildlife, entry of new forest product firms, and flexibility in funding and land use. |
