# State Park Funding RESOLUTION NO. 12-2008-01



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

RESOLUTION NO. 12-2008-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARKS
(CCMSP) TO ELIMINATE THE MICHIGAN STATE PARK MOTOR VEHICLE PERMIT (MVP) AND BOATING ACCESS SITE PERMIT (BAS) AND IMPROVE FUNDING FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARKS AND OTHER MICHIGAN OUTDOOR RECREATION VENUES ADOPTED: December 17, 2008

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/d...ehicle_Plate_Proposal_Resolution_260648_7.pdf


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Michigan parks entry fees would go away under plan

http://www.freep.com/article/200903...gan+parks+entry+fees+would+go+away+under+plan

03/11/09 BY DAVID EGGERT  ASSOCIATED PRESS

LANSING -- Motorists would no longer be charged entrance fees to use state parks and boat launches, instead paying $10 more a year in vehicle registration fees under bipartisan legislation to be announced Thursday.

It currently costs $6 daily and $24 annually to enter state parks or use boat launches.

Vehicle stickers would go by the wayside under the plan. Only a license plate would be needed to visit all 98 state parks and recreation areas, five state park trails, more than 1,000 boat sites and state forest campgrounds. Nightly camping fees would stay intact.

The $10 fee -- $5 for motorcyclists -- would rise with the rate of inflation each year.

Drivers could opt out of paying the extra $10 if they said they wouldnt be using the parks or other areas -- an honor system of sorts.

Out-of-state residents would still have to buy an annual pass for $29 or a day pass for $8.

Supporters say the bills would create a long-term funding source for the parks system and local recreation programs.

Sen. Patricia Birkholz, R-Saugatuck, said parks need maintenance and upkeep, and residents need nearby places to vacation.

This proposal will provide the money our parks need and make it more affordable for residents to visit our parks system, she said.

The legislation also is being sponsored by Reps. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, and Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, along with Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor.

Although the general fund once provided most of the capital necessary to support state parks, these dollars are now used in other areas of the budget, Warren said.

The proposal resembles a plan suggested in December by a citizens panel that follows issues involving the park system.

If the bills win approval, people who normally buy annual permits would save $14 a year. Those who visit a park just once a year would essentially pay $4 more.

Michigans parks were cut out of the general fund budget five years ago. Instead of getting tax money, the parks rely primarily on motor vehicle and camping fees.

The Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks says Michigan ranks last nationally in general tax support for state parks but ranks second in overnight park attendance.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources says it needs $38 million a year for infrastructure and preventive maintenance. It currently spends $2 million.

About $45 million is being spent on operations, which DNR officials say is about $8 to $10 million short of what is needed.

The alternate funding idea would save money for making permits and stickers, reduce staffing levels at fee collection booths, eliminate lines in peak season and help restore more than 350 cultural and historical features in parks and recreation areas, according to backers.

The citizens panel also wants some of the money generated by the registration fees to go to local parks.

The commission has projected revenue streams depending on how many motorists pay the $10 fee.

It says Montana moved to a similar system in 2003, and more than 70% of Montana vehicle registrants choose to give money to state parks.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

With 2 vehicles, Id opt out one for sure.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

That's a good start. Now if we could just get them to stop WASTING money by printing 2 different licenses hunting licenses..


----------



## PerchOnly (Oct 24, 2007)

CL-Lewiston said:


> With 2 vehicles, Id opt out one for sure.


As would most Michiganders. The 10 honest people left in Michigan would then pay the $100.00 and the whole idea would sink.

They need to rethink this.


----------



## Blueump (Aug 20, 2005)

PerchOnly said:


> As would most Michiganders. The 10 honest people left in Michigan would then pay the *$100.00* and the whole idea would sink.
> 
> They need to rethink this.


Maybe I misread the article...but I thought it said $10? 

I'd opt out all but one of my vehicles...but I personally think its a great idea!


----------



## PerchOnly (Oct 24, 2007)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The 10 honest people would pay $10.00 each and the state would have a total of $100.00 in their hands.

Too many people are going to "opt" out. 

If your paying $24 now for a permit and can get it for $10, who wouldn't?

CL-Lewiston & Blueump, do you now pay the $24.00? I'm guessing yes. So instead of the state getting $48 from the 2 of you, it is getting $20. 

Yes, your getting a deal, but the state is losing & the bill's purpose is for the state to get more.


----------



## Blueump (Aug 20, 2005)

PerchOnly said:


> Sorry, I should have been clearer. The 10 honest people would pay $10.00 each and the state would have a total of $100.00 in their hands.
> 
> Too many people are going to "opt" out.
> 
> ...


No, I usually pay the daily fee - I'm never sure when I'm going to use it - so I don't invest, _as I probably should,_ in the annual tag.

With that said, if I knew I could get in whenever I wanted, cause I already paid the fee, I'd visit these places a lot more! I'm also sure that other people across the state would gladly give up their $10 knowing simply that it was going toward improving our state parks. I see more revenue here than less!


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

The proposal is betting on the fact that far more people would pay the $10 fee for the opportunity than would actually purchase an annual pass. Many more people intend to visit state parks every year than actually visit them. It's the same reason why gyms sell multi-month contracts at highly discounted rates over a day, week or month pass.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Bill to drop state park fee, raise cost of vehicle registration is great solution to funding crisis

I love it when a good idea gains traction -- especially when it is simple and efficient. Better still when it can help protect natural places. All the better when it can save us money.

That's what's happening in Lansing with a bill to fund state parks, state forest recreation and local parks.

Kudos to Sen. Patty Birkholz, R-Saugatuck, for introducing the bill. More so for pulling together bipartisan and bicameral support. Birkholz announced the bill last week with Rep. Rebekah Warren, the chairwoman for the House Great Lakes and Environment Committee. Birkholz is the Senate Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee chairwoman.

Michigan officials are anticipating closer to a 65 percent opt-in rate. That could raise more than $40 million, 50 percent of which would go to state park infrastructure needs while 30 percent goes to park operations and maintenance. Ten percent would go to local park development grants. Seven percent would go to state forest recreation programs, the campgrounds, pathways and trails in state forests.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2009/03/bill_to_drop_state_park_fee_ra.html


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

I pay $6 for one time use-season Sr citizen.


----------



## williewater99 (Sep 8, 2000)

:coolgleam For discussion purposes, why not draft another Proposal C, like the one in 1998, that funded $100 million in state and local park upgrades and other projects? Automatic price increases on public facilities without public discussion makes me uncomfortable, i.e. inflationary increases in license plates for parks maintenance, etc. . What do you think (pros-cons)?


----------



## michhutr (Jan 16, 2009)

Inflationary increases on licenses, plates and other fees offer no public debate over the use of these increases. The legislature can reduce public funding (if any) until we have a total user fee program which may not be sufficent to fund improvements or required expenses. Let the politicians come to the voters for tax/fee increases.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

A joint hearing of the Senate and House Natural Resources committees will be held in Lansing this Weds -- 8 - 10 AM -- to listen to testimony on these four bills. They provide a new way to fund State Parks, forest campgrounds, boating access sites, and some local parks development projects (perhaps doubling the money the Natural Resources Trust Fund now spends on development projects).

Here is a website that has been developed by members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Michigan State Parks (the source of the proposal). It contains much relevant information: http://www.ourmichiganparks.org/ 

Here are the four bills, which are available on line at the Legislative site: SIB 388, and 389. HIB 4677 and 4678.

If you cannot travel to Lansing on Weds to give testimony you can contact your Legislators.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

County Road Association of Michigan (CRAM) officials claim a legislative proposal popped last week that would add an optional $10 fee to vehicle registration fees for essentially an annual pass to the state's park system is unconstitutional.

CRAM director John Niemla said the constitution is "very clear" that all taxes on registered motor vehicles shall be used exclusively for transportation purposes."

"Michigan's road agencies are struggling to maintain our transportation network with 2009 costs and less revenue than we had available in 1998," Niemela said. "It is irresponsible to consider increasing vehicle registration fees for anything other than its constitutionally intended purpose, the improvement of Michigan's transportation infrastructure."


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

A proposal that surfaced yesterday as an alternative way to fund the state's financially struggling parks system, is just plain bad public policy, according to Michigan Chamber of Commerce President Rich Studley. 

Under new legislation, residents could opt out of a $10 additional fee when they pay their annual vehicle registration fee. The money would go to support the parks and the resident's license plate would "be your parks passport," Birkholz said. The state would no longer charge $24 for an annual pass.

"I read about the proposal and I couldn't help but think what a remarkably foolish plan it is. It's an exercise in wishful thinking," said Studley, who is the co-chair of a transportation funding study committee, which is looking at upping licensing fees for extra road construction money.

Sen. Patty Birkholz (R-Saugatuck), chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor), chair of the House Great Lakes and the Environment Committee, introduced the plan during a Thursday press conference.

The idea is that 65 percent of Michigan residents would participate in the program, meaning more money for the parks.

Studley said that the proposal would be administratively difficult to put into place.

"Having to continually check license plates to see who is in state and who is out . . . it's a questionable proposal to begin with and administratively it's very difficult to carry out," he added. "Driver's fees and motor vehicle registration fees should be used for our roads, or at least something related to public safety or traffic safety. This would not only be misplaced priorities, but bad public policy."


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Credit to MIRS Newsletter for the above two articles.

Apparently this issue isn't as cut and dried as we thought.


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

You have to pay 24 bucks a year to use the parks annually anyways? If you registered both your vehicles, you'd still save 4 bucks....

No wonder the DNR is sinking. Everyone is too damn cheap.

It should be MANDATORY on EVERY vehicle in Michigan whether they use the parks or not.

Sportsmen and women have been carrying the DNR for entirely too long. I spend over 100 bucks a year in licenses. Time for others to pick up some slack.

It shouldn't matter whether one uses the parks or not. How many people actually collect unemployment? We all have to pay it though.

The sad fact is though too many dishonest people will opt out if this actually goes through...which I tend to think it has a snowballs chance in hell of making it...


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Firefighter said:


> You have to pay 24 bucks a year to use the parks annually anyways? If you registered both your vehicles, you'd still save 4 bucks....
> 
> No wonder the DNR is sinking. Everyone is too damn cheap.
> 
> ...


  

Although, I am optimistic this will be approved by the Legislature. It may end up in court though.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

I can't believe I missed this thread.

First off, Michigan State Parks are not funded by the DNR or by the States General Fund. 

Boat access sites do recieve some general fund money but very little.

State Parks are kept afloat entirely by user fees and camping fees. This allows all 99 State Parks and Rec areas to manage their day to day expenses. The State Parks are not like other venues of the government and don't spend money that they don't have. 

The problem is that most state parks are literally falling apart at the infrastructure level. The funding from motor vehicle permits and camping fees, after paying for day to day operations, only allows for 1% of building upgrades and construction projects. 

I noticed in the one article about the passport bill being bad sense, that the economist metioned the logistic issue with checking license plates and what not. News flash, WE DO THIS EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE THAT COMES PAST OUR ENTRY BOOTH!!!

As of now if they have a sticker, we have to check to make sure that it's adhered properly to the windshield as they are not transferable. If it appears to have been tampered with we remove the serial number and replace it with a new one. People go to great lengths to cheat the system. Coating the sticker with vasoline so it removes easily, laminating it, etc etc. Well, we have people that watch for this.

All MI vehicles will be required to have the passport to gain entry into state parks. They can either opt in when they register their vehicle or they can wait until they visit the state parks where they can get a passport tab there. However, if you do wait to get the passport at the state park you won't be paying 10.00...it will be nominaly more. 

Also, there are no more resident daily permits. If you have a state of MI license plate, you will be required to purchase a passport if you wish to use the state parks. 

Non residents will still have their same rates. 

Also, the passport is also good for all boating access sites...so instead of needing 2 separate permits, you only need one.

Sure, if you have 2 vehicles you can only opt in for one...but if you take the other vehicle to the state park, you will be required to purchase a passport for that as well. 

Also...Resident Senior stickers are no more. Only the passport.


----------

