FAQs
Establish a recreation card or pass (physical or online) that is a base cost to purchase with easy ala carte add-ons for each additional use
Assess out of state users for potential license increases
Charge fees for currently free uses (boat landings, WMAs, etc)
Increase fines for violations to charge true cost
Increase horse camping opportunities
Raise ORV registration to cover cost of trail maintenance
Extend hunting/angling season (with increased license cost)
Dedicate a percent of fuel sales (the percent likely being used on boats and outdoor recreation vehicles) to DNR budget
Establish a carbon tax with funds dedicated to conservation
Generally raise taxes on those most able to pay to raise general fund
Dedicate sales tax on all outdoor recreation equipment to conservation and outdoor recreation causes, or work with businesses for an optional point-of-sale add-on for conservation
Tax solar panels and electric cars
Add a tax form check-off for public lands
Establishing a base funding for all natural resource and environmental agencies/services in Minnesota through the general fund that this predictable and guaranteed
Cooperating with other agencies on closely shared tasks and services to more efficiently meet needs
Automatically adjusting prices for services with inflation
Establishing a foundation to support state parks and other state lands (ala the National Parks Foundation)
Make it easier to voluntarily donate
Selling timber off state park lands
Making state park merchandise easier to buy (a single on-line store)
Bolster federal programs so there is more money coming to Minnesota (and other recipients)
What’s the need?
We have lots of people have asked us to describe what is need is or why we are thinking about funding. The DNR budget is rather complex, but we are seeing downward trends in two of the funds that make up a significant portion of the budget (Game and Fish fund and Natural Resources Fund) while we have not seen increases in other portions of the budget that would cover the declines. While these aren’t the only source of income for the agency, vulnerabilities in these funds would compromise the agency’s ability to provide the services Minnesotan’s expect. We don’t just want to keep covering gaps, however, if there is a larger issue in the funding system. That is why we are taking a broader approach – starting with a vision for the future of conservation and outdoor recreation and then finding solutions that will help us get to that vision.
Could we have more (or different) users paying into the system?
We have had lots of questions or suggestions about shared stewardship and responsibility. I am making note of the specific suggestions and examples (keep them coming!). We have heard how important to people that care for conservation and outdoor recreation resources are shared broadly as all Minnesotans benefit (directly or indirectly). We have also heard how important it is to maintain access of public spaces for the public, and that any solution needs to not price Minnesotans out. We are going to be keeping both of these values at the core of decision making about possible solutions.
Some ideas we have heard so far
We will consider all ideas that come in - no decisions have been made yet. This is an on-going process, thank you for your participation!
Expand fee based revenue solutions. People have offered many ideas on how to use the existing fee structure to increase revenue, including:
Expand tax based solutions. There have also been ideas on how to use the tax structure to increase revenue, including:
New or expanded mechanisms to increase funds not related to fees or taxes. A few ideas to increase revenue that were not related to fees or taxes included:
Examine current spending and lower costs. Some people suggested there was room to reassess current budgets. Ideas included just doing less as an agency to save money, using more students or volunteers in the workforce, redistributing current state budgets (particularly Legacy and lottery dollars).