Final Report to the Full Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources in Early February 2004
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON MINNESOTA RESOURCES 100 REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD. - ROOM 65 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155-1201 LCMR PARKS STUDY GROUP REPORT Approved as amended by the full LCMR on February 4, 2004 Senators: Jim Vickerman - Chair, Ellen Anderson, D. Scott Dibble, Dennis Frederickson, Linda Higgins, Pat Pariseau, Carrie Ruud, Dallas Sams, David Tomassoni, Charles Wiger Representatives:: Lyndon Carlson, Doug Fuller, Tom Hackbarth, Larry Howes, Phyllis Kahn, Jim Knoblach, Mark Olson, Joe Opatz, Dennis Ozment, Kathy Tingelstad Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………….. i - iv INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………….. 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Purpose and Benefits of Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces …………….. 3 2. Elements of Minnesota State Parks, Metropolitan Regional Parks, and Regional Parks in Greater Minnesota ……………………………….. 3 a. Description/Definition ……………………………………………… 3 b. Authorizing Legislation and Criteria for New Units ………………. 8 c. Estimated Visits …………………………………………………….. 10 d. Economic Impacts …………………………………………………. 13 e. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Sources of Funding …. 14 f. User Fees and Other Non-Tax Revenues ……………………….. 15 g. Capital Financing …………………………………………………… 18 3. Fees Used in Other State Park Systems ………………………………… 19 4. Best Management Practices for Parks …………………………………...22 5. Minnesota's State Trail System ……………………………………………22 POLICY ISSUES 1. Conclusions / Recommendations ………………………………………….25 2. Other Items Considered by the Study Group ……………………………. 26 RESOURCES ………………………………………………………………………. 32 APPENDICES A. State Park System: Park Size and Visitor Information B. Metropolitan Regional Park System: Park Size and Visitor Information C. Examples of Greater Minnesota Regional Parks D. Authorizing Legislation and Criteria for New Units E. Regional Significance and Use for Greater Minnesota Regional Parks F. Metropolitan Regional Park Operations and Maintenance Grant Appropriations, 1985-2003 G. State Park System - Summary of User Fees and Charges H. Metropolitan Regional Park System - Summary of User Fees and Charges I. Summary of Concession Activities J. Capital Financing for State Parks and Metropolitan Regional Parks, 1991-2003 K. Recent State Funding for Regional Parks in Greater Minnesota L. Unresolved Conflicts M. Summary of Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Survey 02/06/04 1 List of Tables Page 1. Comparison of State Parks and Metropolitan Regional Parks ………………… 4 2. Comparison of Facilities in State Parks, Metro Regional Parks, Greater Minnesota Regional Parks, and State Trails ………………………… insert 3. Total Visits at the Top State Parks, 2000-2002 ……………………………….. 10 4. Total Visits at the Top Metropolitan Regional Parks and Trails, 2002 ………. 11 5. Estimated Visitation for Greater Minnesota Regional Parks, 2001 or 2002 … 12 6. Percentage of State Park and Metro Regional Park Operating Budgets by Funding Source …………………………………………………….. insert 7. Summary of User Fees and Charges, State Parks and Metro Regional Parks …………………………………………………………………… insert 8. Metropolitan Regional Park System Operations and Maintenance Expenditures and Amount Financed with User Fees and Other Non-Tax Revenues, 2002 ……………………………………………………………………. 18 The LCMR Parks Study Group acknowledges the support and cooperation of staff of the Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division and Outdoor Recreation Grants Program; the Metropolitan Council; and county and city park directors in Greater Minnesota. 02/06/04 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the 2003 legislative session, the February 4, 2004. The LCMR amended Legislature struggled with statewide and adopted the report. budget shortfalls. Discussions related to operations and maintenance financing The LCMR Parks Study Group met six of state and metropolitan regional parks times during the second half of 2003. included raising entrance and camping The Study Group reviewed background fees for state parks, whether state parks information on state parks, metropolitan could be more self-sufficient, and how regional parks, regional parks in Greater much financial support the state should Minnesota, and state trails; heard provide to metropolitan regional parks. presentations from representatives of Capital funding for Minnesota parks has the various park agencies; and took been a priority of the Legislative public testimony. In addition, the LCMR Commission on Minnesota Resources summer trips included presentations since its inception in 1963. At the and tours of four state parks and one request of the House Environment and state recreation area, six metropolitan Natural Resource Finance Committee regional parks, and four regional parks Chair, and to help inform future in Greater Minnesota. legislative funding discussions, the LCMR recommended the following appropriation language for a study Findings commission on park systems: a. State parks, metropolitan regional (b) LCMR Study Commission on Park parks, and regional parks in Greater Systems $26,000 the first year is from Minnesota are elements of a the trust fund to the legislative comprehensive and complementary commission on Minnesota resources to statewide park system. Each evaluate the use of fees to assist the system has a different mission, financial stability and the potential of fees to provide for self-sufficiency in different goals, and different clientele Minnesota's park systems, including but each system is based, in varying state parks, metropolitan regional parks, degrees, on similar public benefits. and rural regional parks in greater These benefits include preserving Minnesota. The study commission will natural resources, protecting open report to the chairs of the senate and space, protecting cultural and house environment finance committees historical resources, physical fitness by February 16, 2004. (Minn. Laws opportunities, as well as providing 2003, Chap. 128, Art. 1, Sec. 9, Subd recreational opportunities and 3.(b).) interpretive services. The LCMR Chair appointed the LCMR b. The state park and metropolitan Parks Study Group. The Study Group regional park systems both rely on consists of Representatives Dennis user fees and non-tax revenues Ozment, Chair of the Study Group, (such as transfers from enterprise Phyllis Kahn, Jim Knoblach, Kathy funds) but in varying amounts. The Tingelstad, and Senators Linda Higgins, percent of state park operating costs Carrie Ruud, Dallas Sams, and Jim from these sources is projected to Vickerman. The Parks Study Group be 40 percent in SFY 2004. The presented its report to the full LCMR for percent of metropolitan regional park discussion and decision making on operating costs from user fees and 02/06/04 i non-tax revenues was between 16 Plan (for Benton, Sherburne, and and 17 percent in CYs 2002 and Stearns counties), local units of 2003. government in Greater Minnesota have not created a "system" for c. State parks rely on the state general coordinating development and fund and lottery-in-lieu revenues for management of regional parks. As a most of its operating revenues (60 result, comparable attendance and percent in SFY 2004). Metropolitan financing data for regional parks in regional parks depend Greater Minnesota are not available. predominantly upon local property The DNR criteria for capital grant taxes (73 percent in CY 2003). The programs (acquisition, development, state general fund and lottery-in-lieu and rehabilitation) seem to serve as revenues accounted for 11 percent an accepted definition of Greater of the metropolitan regional parks Minnesota regional parks. operating budget in CY 2003. h. There is urgency for local d. Entrance and camping/lodging fees governments to acquire available for state parks are fairly uniform land suitable for regional parks in even when the services, facilities, Greater Minnesota because of and demand vary. For instance, rapidly rising land costs and campsites with similar amenities development pressures in cost the same whether in prime developing areas. locations along a lakeshore or in less demanded locations away from i. State and regional parks and trails a lakeshore. Fees charged for some provide interconnected systems for facilities, such as group camps, do outdoor recreation opportunities. not appear to reflect market Discussions of parks and trails demand. should acknowledge this interdependence. e. User fees for metropolitan regional parks vary with the local park implementing agency because the Conclusions / Recommendations governing boards of some park systems have elected to charge 1. As part of the Department of entrance fees and others have not. Natural Resources' proposed FY For example, Washington County 2006-07 budget, the Division of generates 34 percent of its regional Parks and Recreation should park operating budget from user develop suggestions for fees, compared with Ramsey increasing fees, generating County, which generates seven additional revenues, developing percent of its regional park operating new revenue opportunities, and budget from user fees. improving efficiency in order to provide for greater self- f. There are opportunities for sufficiency of, while maintaining managers of state parks, metro- public access to, the state park politan regional parks, and regional system. parks in Greater Minnesota to expand their reliance on user fees. During the LCMR summer trips, members visited several state parks g. With the exception of the Central and observed a fully-occupied Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails lakeshore campground at Lake 02/06/04