As is the case with so many public budgets, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board’s has a significant gap between the needs (identified in this case by the Natural Areas and Cedar-Isles Master Plan) and the resources available to implement them.
Looking at just one area as an example, the Natural Resources team, there are several critical concerns.
Natural Resources staff, supplemented by park stewards, contribute to our ecosystems by restoring healthy natural areas throughout our park system. I serve as a steward at Cedar Lake Point Beach.
The proposed 2027 Park Board budget includes three new full-time positions for Natural Resources, which sounds like a dramatic expansion.
But because the budget converts 2.25 seasonal Natural Resources FTEs into three year-round environmental program specialists (supported by one supervisor and two technicians), the result would be six permanent positions, three supported by the general fund and three by the state-supported Natural Areas Management Fund. Compared with the current 5.25 FTEs, the net increase is 0.75, not three.
“Compared with the current 5.25 FTEs, the net increase is 0.75, not three.”
Still, it represents progress. Year-round positions offer continuity: retaining knowledge, planning across seasons, sustaining volunteer relationships and ensuring follow-up. Natural area restoration is not seasonal. Buckthorn resprouts, native plantings need care and management plans require evaluation.
What is actually growing?
Natural Resources is housed within the Park Board’s Environmental Management Department, part of its Environmental Stewardship division. Combining its general fund and Natural Areas Management Fund expenses, the whole department’s budget grows from approximately $5.9 million in 2026 to $6.7 million in 2027 and $7.2 million in 2028.
This is a narrow lens. Other departments are growing even faster, driven mostly by the need to staff and support the North Commons and Upper Harbor Terminal projects.
Natural Resources is only one part of that department, which represents less than one-tenth of the Park Board’s total FTEs. Environmental Management is also responsible for environmental education, youth employment, horticulture, water and stormwater management, community gardens and volunteers.
All are legitimate, but the proposed budget does not clarify allocations for any of these categories. Reporting them together makes it hard to see how much of the department’s growth actually reaches the natural areas.
Growth creates another obligation.
A proposed horticulture-focused position raises a related question. Park Board materials report that formal landscape acreage increased 36% from 2021 through 2026 and is projected to increase 170% by 2028. Perennial and shrub beds, meadows, no-mow turf, green roofs and other forms of “natural infrastructure” require specialized care.
That growth may justify another horticultural employee. But capital improvements create staffing and maintenance demands.
A designed landscape can be environmentally beneficial without being ecological restoration; maintaining it should be distinguished from expanding Natural Resources.
Growth does not end with construction.
Every new facility, amenity and managed landscape may create a lifetime of operating, maintenance, repair and replacement expenses. Those obligations should be funded when a project is approved. A project is not truly affordable simply because enough money has been found to build it.
What is happening in the natural areas?
The Park Board has approximately 1,200 acres identified as natural areas, but only about 400 acres are actively managed. Approximately 800 acres receive limited or passive care. The 2021 Natural Areas Plan found that 759 of the 1,168 assessed upland and woodland acres received a “D” rating.
The proposed budget directs Natural Resources staff to identify attainable restoration goals for seven existing management briefs, evaluate another 95 managed acres and work toward the 2030 performance goal “with existing resources.”
What can be accomplished with existing resources when only one-third of the acreage is actively managed and most assessed acreage was already in poor condition? Where are the resources to care adequately for existing lands, much less expand the acreage being managed? The employees are being asked to address a problem larger than their capacity.
Programs, jobs, volunteers and plantings measure activity. Environmental improvement must be measured by the land: fewer invasives, greater native regeneration, healthier habitats and more acreage under effective management.
The Park Board could report Environmental Management by function. Natural area restoration, youth employment, education, horticulture, water resources and volunteer coordination should each show budgets, staffing changes and intended outcomes.
“Values are what we say. Priorities are what we fund and who we hire.”
Converting seasonal Natural Resources positions into permanent jobs is constructive. The conversion creates a more stable team, but only a modest increase in its capacity to care for natural areas. Adding managed acreage without a strategy and commensurate resources will not produce success, and growth in Environmental Management does not necessarily mean growth in ecological capacity.
Values are what we say. Priorities are what we fund and who we hire.
The question is not simply whether the Park Board is growing. It is whether that growth strengthens its capacity to care for the nature already entrusted to it.
Steve Kotvis writes for the Hill & Lake Press. He lives in Bryn Mawr.
