A recent Pioneer Press article provides a glimpse into Dakota County’s plan to transform what is an area full of natural beauty into a county park which will offer many amenities which some members of the public wanted.
From the article:
The area has rolling forested hills with a small lake and wetlands. The master plan calls for a visitor center, trails, picnic and event areas, camping cabins, an off-leash dog park and a disc-golf course.
The $5.2 million first phase of the project will include a gravel road, paved parking, water and electricity, a picnic shelter, trails, boardwalks, restrooms and other improvements.
Total cost of the project is estimated at $26 million. The park is expected to open next year.
It would appear that one of the biggest reasons Dakota County plans to put so much money into the park is that there are projections (5-1) that by 2030 this 400+ acre plot will play host to 1/2 a million visitors a year (more than the 2600+ acre and centrally located Lebanon Hills which had less than 460,000 visits in 2010).
With Dakota County raising taxes because of the cuts made at the state level, do you think that it’s a wise decision to plan on spending $5+ million dollars is a good idea at this time? Can you think of anything else which Dakota County should instead put its money into instead? What are your thoughts on the visitor projections for 2030 for this park for its size and location? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
March 1st, 2012 at 8:04 am
Yet another example of politicians with no concept of money, budget or priorities in the light of our current economic woes. We are in no position at this point in time that any government agency should be spending money on non-essential services such as this.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:10 am
I think most of these commuting communities (or outer ring suburbs) are going to regret adding on all this development and park land with the “If you build it they will come” attitude. After the housing bubble burst (and skyrocketing gas prices), I think there is a lot more demand for existing housing nearer to where people work than moving to the next development built a little bit further out than the last.
Everyone likes parks, but having a high budget due to projected visitors during a time when everyone including Dakota County is having budget crunches makes them seem a little irresponsible or in the dark.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:46 am
I have trouble believing those attendance projections, especially in comparison to the usage Lebanon Hills gets, as you noted. And I also think Twoboot is right about the future population of the county not being anywhere near what people once thought it would be.
I would be fine with them doing something very simple like putting in a gravel parking lot and clearing some trails (which they could mostly do with volunteer work, Eagle Scout projects, etc). But all the things they are planning aren’t necessary, as least not right away, especially in light of how much use the park is likely to get.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:01 am
460,000 visits in 2010 – that’s over 1,260 per day on average – not excluding holidays. I believe it gets busy on summer weekends, but I truly doubt that number is accurate. It would appear the Park Board is inflating it’s numbers to justify more parks.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:09 am
Seriously?!?! This is a ridiculous idea given the state of the economy. As a Dakota County resident – this is not how I want my tax money spent. I would prefer funds be devoted to gaining new business and creating a tax base and employment opportunities.
March 1st, 2012 at 10:15 am
NW Rochester Guy, yeah, that number does seem high at first glance. OTOH, the park does get a ton of use — people going to the beach, hikers, mountain bikers, horse riders, campers, school/youth groups, people there for special events, etc. So it’s hard to say without knowing how they reached that number.
March 1st, 2012 at 1:45 pm
There are 398,552 residents in Dakota County. That’s $65.24 per resident.
Including rental units, there are 151,956 households in Dakota County. That’s $171.10 per household.
Yeah, we’re paying way too much for this.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:45 pm
The work on this park began in 2010. I drive around that area often in spring and fall looking for migrating birds. Much of it is farmland owned by some government entity and leased to area farmers. There are lots of woods and a stream that runs through the area. Hopefully the photo I attached will show the southern border of it on the left side of the photo I took in spring 2010. A few bow hunters and small game hunters use the area now in the fall. I don’t think it can be stopped at this point. There will be a park there soon.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Marty, we’re not looking to stop the park. We’re looking to stop them from spending $26 million on unnecessary development of it.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Well, I see the photo uploader did not work. It was a nice photo of a very green tree enshrouded road with fresh class 5 and only grader tracks as far as you can see, like looking into the enchanted forest.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Marty, the image is probably too large. Shrink it down and post it again.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:41 pm
What price do we agree to pay for ‘quality of life’? On another thread on LL someone stated that governments are, in part, expected to address the quality of life for its citizens. One might argue that parks add to our quality of life. So, is it just the cost of the park? Or is it that government should be so small as to not address quality of life issues? …just provide the absolute bare minimum for our safety? Isn’t it a matter of degrees here?
March 1st, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Five million is a lot of cash. On the other hand Lakeville’s park director recently commented that just a simple neighborhood park costs half a million. That’s basically a playground, baseball field, and and a very small parking lot. If that’s the case I can see where a regional park could get close to $5 million pretty quick.
I might have missed this, but do we know what the funding sources are for that $5 million? Is any of this coming from the legacy funding we voted for a few years back or is this strictly from property taxes?
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 am
C&V, that’s a fair point. In this particular case, though, I don’t think developing this park to the extent that is planned is the right way to go. There are other parks in the area that are already developed, and recently at that (I didn’t have a problem with what was done at Lebanon). Now maybe it will change at some point in the future, but for now I think they are better off starting small.
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 pm
I am very glad this area will be a park. I have been to the area several time while working for the county a few years back. It is a wonderful track of land.
However, why does the county feel like this park needs a host of amenities? Isn’t there value in providing a nice, quiet, simple park? Is the goal of a park really to maximize visitors? That just cheapens the park while making it more expensive to build and maintain.
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:51 pm
I agree with O.B.B. that it should be left as natural as possible but accessible via a few paved trails and adequate parking at at least two entrance points. They could throw in a few picnic tables here and there and some benches for sitting a spell and restroom facilities. I can not imagine what they have in mind that could take 26 million dollars. Many counties in Minnesota have NO county park at all. If the State would make the State parks free or even reasonable, we wouldn’t need county parks. But Government thinking is always if there are too few users, raise the fee. Sorry but it doesn’t work like that in the real world. A seller can ask any fee, but the market determines the price.
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Marty,
I’d prefer that counties have parks and not the State. There is more local control that way over the resources and local residents have a much bigger say in the process.
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:26 pm
“If the State would make the State parks free or even reasonable, we wouldn’t need county parks.”.
A 2012 State Park Permit is $25. How is that not reasonable?
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:41 pm
State parks should be for all the people, not just the ones with incomes above the median for the state. Young families with kids don’t have that $25 fee to use those parks for the few times a year that they can get away from work long enough to use them. The state took all the most scenic and interesting sites long ago for parks, why aren’t they free when the people paid for them? I can afford the $25 now, but back when our four kids were young we found it to be too expensive. Had they kept the annual sticker price at $5.00 they would not be bemoaning the lack of park visitors. Three times last year we have entered a park to buy an annual permit only to find nobody there to sell us one. The minute some state union cries about something, they threaten to close the parks.
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:03 pm
“Young families with kids don’t have that $25 fee to use those parks for the few times a year that they can get away from work long enough to use them.”
Those same families have no problem dropping $50 a month (and often more) on cable or Dish TV or $30 a month on a data plan for their $300 smartphone or $1,500 (give or take $700) on a new HD TV or $50 for dinner once a month (or week).
I’m a young family with kids (upper twenties, 3 kids 2 and under) and we’re a single income family with plenty of expenses on our plate. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone though, no matter how frugal, who doesn’t have $25 for discretionary spending. Besides, people who are actually too poor to afford an entrance fee are usually too poor to even afford the car and gas to get to the park.
I get your point and as someone who’s a huge patron of the state and national parks, I’ve often questioned whether we should really be charging people to use what’s ours. But a $25 fee for a state parks pass or $80 for the national parks pass seems reasonable to me and besides, I’m a fan of fee-based taxation over simply taxing what I earn or own. I equate it with paying to register my vehicle each year.
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:07 pm
For me the pass to get in isn’t as big of a deal as charging enough for camping to make it cheaper to stay at a nearby motel.
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:23 pm
You can find a motel room for less than $12 to $22 a night (the fee for a standard state park campsite)?
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:25 pm
It’s not just $22/night. You have to pay $25 + reservation fees + tax. Then you have to bring in your shit (tent, equipment, etc). And yes, you can find hotel rooms for $30/night.
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:27 pm
“And yes, you can find hotel rooms for $30/night.”
Look out for Norman Bates. ;)
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:29 pm
While campsites are generally known to be very safe, the fact that you have a lock on your door makes me a little more safe than a thin sheet of nylon between me and potential dangers :)
(I love to camp and do so at every possible opportunity. No, I will not pay for a State Park pass or to camp on my own land. I use free camping at a local county park instead.)
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:26 pm
I get what you’re saying. I personally don’t think county parks hold a candle to state parks (although I do enjoy both for different uses), however, especially for camping.
A $30 motel room might feel safer but I think I’d feel cleaner sleeping outside. :)
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
I generally will sleep with my clothes on at either ;-)
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Is that a requirement of The Wife? ;)
March 2nd, 2012 at 4:00 pm
I paid $35/night for a hotel room in St. Cloud a few weeks back. The place was worn and bare-bones, but safe and minimally clean enough.
November 15th, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] to anyone else that they visit the park. With overzealous estimates believing the park will see 1/2 million visitors in 2030, do you believe this something we need to worry about right [...]