Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Outdoor Heritage Fund bill would direct $168 million to restoration, council asks for targeted extensions
Loading...
Summary
The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council presented Senate File 770, recommending roughly $168 million in projects to restore, protect and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests and wildlife habitat; committee members pressed staff on landowner outreach, federal matching funds and carryforward requests. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.
The Lessard‑Sams Outdoor Heritage Council presented its annual funding recommendations under Senate File 770 on the Outdoor Heritage Fund, asking the Senate committee to lay the bill over for possible inclusion.
The council’s executive director, Mark Johnson, told the committee the bill packages about $168 million in recommended appropriations to restore, protect and enhance Minnesota habitat, covering prairie, forest, wetland and other habitat projects across the state. Johnson said the council’s recommendations result in both enhancement work (the largest share by acres) and fee or easement acquisitions. He described the council’s review process and follow‑up on unfinished projects and urged members to contact his office for specific accomplishment plans and project details.
Why it matters: The Outdoor Heritage Fund is one of four funds created by the 2008 Clean Water, Land and Legacy constitutional amendment. The fund directs a fixed share of sales tax revenue to habitat work statewide. Projects funded through the fund directly affect public lands, easements on private lands, and local governments that host conserved acreage.
Key details: Johnson walked members through a handout that summarizes outputs by acres and by funding, showing that enhancement comprises the majority of acres in the recommendation and that prairie restorations account for a large share of affected acreage. The bill lists projects grouped by subdivision in the bill text (prairie projects in subdivision 2 pages 2–6, forest pages 6–8, wetlands pages 9–11, habitats pages 11–19, and administrative items thereafter).
Committee discussion focused on three implementation topics: (1) whether applicants may leverage Outdoor Heritage Fund land to obtain federal matching grants without returning to the council; (2) carryforward extensions and small corrective timing changes for prior appropriations; and (3) how the council weighs repeat multi‑phase projects versus one‑time funding to reach completion.
On leveraging federal funds: Senate counsel explained the concern. Current statute (Lessard‑Sams enabling language cited by staff as Minnesota Statute 97.8.056 and related subdivisions) requires prior review and approval of the council before a recipient may convey or alter interest in real property acquired with Outdoor Heritage appropriations. That requirement has been interpreted to mean recipients must check with the council before accepting certain federal grants that impose land‑use obligations. Counsel and Johnson said proposed statutory clarifying language would allow lands acquired without Outdoor Heritage funds to be used as leverage for federal conservation grants without a separate council review step, while preserving conservation duties on the lands. The committee heard that DNR legal staff, the commissioner's office and Lessard‑Sams staff collaborated on the language.
On carryforwards and cancellations: The council recommended one‑year extensions for two 2020 appropriations—Metro Big River trout stream work and the St. Louis River Estuary Restoration Initiative—so projects have time to finish work affected by weather and field conditions. The council also recommended cancelling a $120,000 portion of an unused Heron Lake appropriation and reallocating it to core functions for administrative support in the new bill.
On repeat phases and local impacts: Committee members pressed the council about long multi‑phase projects and the frequency of repeat funding. Council members said roughly 94% of recommended items are follow‑on phases and that they increasingly evaluate whether prior appropriations were spent and whether future phases remain necessary. They also discussed county property tax impacts (payments in lieu of taxes, PILT) when the council funds fee acquisitions in counties with limited tax bases.
Outcome: Committee Chair moved to lay the bill over for possible inclusion; the record shows Senate File 770 was laid over for possible inclusion. No formal vote was recorded in the transcript.
What’s next: The council and MPCA/nonpartisan staff offered to provide members with accomplishment plans, maps, and additional project‑level data on request. The bill remains laid over for potential inclusion during omnibus negotiations.
