Audit finds DNR largely complies with purchase rules but missed two reporting duties; acquisitions slow

The Office of the Legislative Auditor told the Legislative Audit Commission on April 25 that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources generally complies with statutory requirements for acquiring land but has not satisfied two reporting duties written into state law.

Sarah de la Cueva, evaluations manager with the Office of the Legislative Auditor, presented the office's review of fee-title land acquisitions and said DNR "generally complied with statutory requirements for land land acquisition process. However, DNR did not fully comply with 2 requirements for reporting that are established in statute." She told commissioners the OLA's analysis covered acquisitions that closed in fiscal years 2020 through 2024.

Why it matters: State law requires DNR to report periodically on lands the agency manages and on transactions from the land acquisition account. Those reports provide transparency about how public money is used to expand and manage state-owned recreation and resource lands; lawmakers and stakeholders said they need the information to evaluate past choices and set future priorities.

Key findings and data

- Scope and counts: From fiscal 2020 to 2024 the OLA counted 234 closed fee-title acquisitions: 110 DNR-led and 124 partner-led. - Timeline: The OLA found the median time to close an acquisition in that five-year window was 21 months. "The median length of the acquisitions during that 5 year period was 21 months," de la Cueva said. - Reporting gaps: Statutes require a biannual inventory of DNR-managed land; OLA found DNR has never submitted that specific report. Statutes also require an annual report listing transactions from the land acquisition account; DNR last submitted that account report for fiscal year 2022, so reports for the two most recent years are overdue. - Statutory asymmetry for partners: Many acquisition statutes predate the routine use of nonstate partner organizations. Where statute requires appraisals, in-person inspections, or county-board approval for DNR-led purchases, those same statutory steps are not always explicit for partner-led acquisitions; OLA observed DNR uses grant or contract terms to require equivalent standards from partners in practice.

Recommendations and responses

OLA recommended the Legislature consider whether statutes should impose the same requirements on partner-led acquisitions as on DNR-led acquisitions, or otherwise clarify expectations in law. OLA also recommended DNR produce the statutorily required inventory and land-acquisition-account reports in a manner that satisfies the statutory language.

Bob Meyer, assistant commissioner at the Department of Natural Resources, responded to the commission that the department accepts the finding about the overdue reports and is working with the Legislature on options. "We recognize that we have not produced a specific report required by law. We recognize that openly, honestly. We accept the failure," Meyer said. He told commissioners the department has language in Senate File 2077 that would repeal the inventory requirement and said DNR would work with the Legislature to design a reporting mechanism if lawmakers prefer to retain reporting. Meyer also said DNR expects to provide the land-acquisition-account information for the overdue years and aims to have both reports presented to the Legislature by Oct. 1, 2025.

Stakeholder views and timeliness work

Surveys OLA conducted of DNR staff, partner organizations, landowners and county governments showed generally favorable views about DNR's site selection but concerns about timeline length. More than half of DNR staff and 70% of partner organizations disagreed with the statement that acquisitions conclude within a reasonable time frame. Stakeholders described appraisal timing, title review and county-review periods as key drivers of delays. OLA noted that counties have up to 90 days to approve or disapprove certain acquisitions, which adds to the calendar time.

DNR and partner organizations have been pursuing process changes. OLA described a Continuous Improvement Project that produced 14 proposed solutions to shorten partner-led timelines; examples include earlier title review and improved attorney consultation workflows. OLA recommended DNR adopt successful partner-led process improvements in DNR-led acquisitions where appropriate.

What the commission heard from lawmakers

Several legislators pressed DNR on why the inventory report has never been filed and on whether the information already exists in agency databases. Representative Quam criticized DNR leadership for not producing a report that the law requires, and senators and representatives asked DNR to propose workable reporting language if the statute is to be changed. Multiple commissioners said a historical record of acquisitions would help lawmakers assess priorities across regions.

Next steps

OLA asked that the Legislature consider clarifying statutes that were written before partner organizations were routinely used to acquire land and that DNR produce the overdue reports or propose a legislative alternative. DNR said it will work with the Legislature on revisions, continue implementing the Continuous Improvement Project recommendations and aim to deliver required reporting by Oct. 1, 2025.

Ending note

The presentation and Q&A concluded with commissioners thanking OLA and DNR staff; the commission took no formal votes during the session.