Although the Outdoor Heritage Bill typically falls outside our organization's scope because we are laser-focused on parks and trails, enough members have reached out to us about a recent change regarding eligibility for the Conservation Partners Legacy Program that we decided to address it here. As explained below, the Legislature made a last-minute change and allocated all FY 2027 CPL funds for projects in the metropolitan area or within the city limits of Duluth, Rochester, and St. Cloud.

What is the Outdoor Heritage Fund?

The Minnesota Legacy sales tax, which is a .375% tax on a variety of goods and services, is constitutionally divided among four specific funds. You’re probably most familiar with the 14.25% dedicated to the Parks and Trails Fund. Our organization was created to ensure that Greater Minnesota receives a portion of that fund.

33% of the sales tax goes to the Outdoor Heritage Fund, which is used to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. The funds are administered by the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which makes recommendations annually through an extensive review process. More information on the proposal and funding process is available here. A portion of the Outdoor Heritage dollars is also made available through a small grants program known as the Conservation Partners Legacy Grants program. This program provides competitive matching grants from $5,000 to $500,000 to local, regional, state, and national nonprofit organizations and government entities, including some of our members.

What happened to CPL funding this year?

Typically, when the Outdoor Heritage Bill is introduced at the Legislature, it is not controversial and passes through with few objections. This year, however, concerns were raised about a flood control project in Northern Minnesota that was creating conflict between local officials and some residents. The Senate removed the project from the bill before it advanced.

In the House, the GOP attempted to remove that project from the bill in committee and advanced two policy changes regarding the administration of the Outdoor Heritage Bill. The GOP wanted to add term limits for service on the Outdoor Heritage Council and to change the hiring process for the Executive Director. When they introduced the amendments, the GOP told the DFL that they would not advance the bill out of committee if those amendments were not adopted. The DFL refused to adopt the amendments, so the bill did not advance.

This stalemate continued for the last few weeks of session. We were one of many groups expressing concern and pushing both parties to pass the bill because the Parks and Trails bill, which included several policy changes and grant extensions we needed, had been incorporated into it as well. As we’ve seen with increasing frequency, negotiations have taken place behind closed doors and out of public view. With about three days left before the legislative session was adjourned, the chairs of the House and Senate announced that an agreement on the Legacy bill had been reached, including both the Outdoor Heritage Fund and the Parks and Trails Fund provisions. The final language announced contained a new restriction on Conservation Partner Legacy funds, limiting grants to the metro area and the cities of Duluth, Rochester, and St. Cloud. At this point, there was no way to make changes to the bill. Either it passed with this restriction, or the entire bill —including all Outdoor Heritage grants as well as the parks and trails language we needed—would fail.

So the bill passed, and these restrictions are in place for FY2027 CPL grants.

Is this change permanent? What is next?

This language applies only to the FY 2027 funds, but some organizations are concerned about the precedent it sets. Some are also questioning whether this conflicts with state statute or the Minnesota Constitution. In the short term, however, this restriction will remain in place. There will likely be a push next year to ensure that this restriction is not permanent.  

As a small organization with a mission focused on parks and trails, we don’t have the resources to lead the fight. There are other, larger organizations that focus more directly on this issue and will lead the charge, but if enough of our members are concerned, we can provide support for those efforts.

We would like to hear from you about this topic! Have you received a CPL grant before? Have you planned to apply? Should we take a position? Please reach out to GMPT lobbyist Elizabeth Wefel at eawefel@flaherty-hood.com and let her know.