Transcript A New and Better Way to Fund Michigan State Parks, State

Michigan’s state park and forest
recreation system: status and
future funding
Dr. Chuck Nelson
Dept. Community, Agriculture, Recreation and
Resource Studies
Michigan State University
March 31, 2009
Current Michigan Park System
 98 state park and recreation areas on 285,000 acres
 Clearly signed properties
 Clearly defined boundaries
 Crown jewels of Michigan purposefully acquired including some
from state forest system
 100 campgrounds with 13,000 + sites mostly modern
 Other lodging including lodges, cabins, tepees and yurts
 880 miles non-motorized trails
 1% of 6,200 mile designated snowmobile trail system
 0% of 3,107 mile designated ORV trail system

1 major ORV scramble area
 200,000 acres open to hunting
Current MI State Forest System
 3.9 million acres of state forest




Unsigned properties
Boundaries defined to public by absence of no trespassing signs
¾ tax reverted lands, 20% hunter dollars, 5% grant programs
880 miles non-motorized pathways

242 miles equestrian oriented Shore-to-Shore Riding-Hiking Trail
 142 state forest campgrounds with 2,500 rustic sites

Includes horse trail camps, ORV oriented campgrounds, canoe
camps
 73% of 3,107 mile designated ORV trail system

1 major and two minor ORV scramble areas
 50% of 6,200 miles designated snowmobile trail system
 3.8 million acres open to hunting
Current Funding
 General tax dollars once provided for most of the capital
improvement and operations funds
 Today, those general tax dollars are obligated elsewhere





Medical care for indigant
Welfare
Higher education
Corrections
Other minor uses

State Police, etc.
 Less than 1% on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment
 Been eating our “seed corn” in natural resources
 Spending almost all funds on operations to run the show, collect
revenue

Little on capital improvement, renovation, major maintenance

Catching up to us with deteriorating, dangerous infrastructure
Funding in 2009
 State parks
 Camping, motor vehicle entry permit, state oil/gas royalties, state
park endowment fund income
 No general tax dollars since 2004
 State forests
 Motorized trail activities reasonably well funded


ORV license for resident and non-resident
Snowmobile registrations, trail permit (res. and non-res.), state
gasoline sales taxes
 State forest campgrounds

Camping fees, general fund
 State forest non-motorized trails (pathways)

Recreation Improvement Fund (state gasoline sales tax), general
fund
Citizens Committee for MI State
Parks Proposed Change 11/07
 Eliminate resident motor vehicle permit for MI State Parks
 Keep non-resident MVP
 Eliminate boating access site motor vehicle permit for MI
residents
 Keep MVP for non-residents
 Replace with a $10 annual fee on each MI car/truck vehicle
registration and $5 on motorcycles
 Opt out for those who certify they won’t use or support
state parks/state forest recreation and don’t support local
parks
 State park and forest camping fees not effected
Revenue
 1/2% of all revenue to Michigan Secretary of State off the top
 Replace lost motor vehicle permit revenue


$10.7 million to MI State Park Improvement Fund
$1.03 million to MI Waterways Fund
 Then with remaining revenue
 50% to state park infrastructure (State Park Improvement Fund)
 30% to state park operations (State Park Improvement Fund)
 10% to local development grants (protected fund, annual
distribution using MNRTF application process)
 7% to state forest recreation operations and infrastructure (Forest
Recreation Fund)
 3% DNR cultural and historic resources (State Park Improvement
Fund)
Montana Record
 73-75% pay the fee
 In place since 2004
 No partnership with forest recreation or local units
 Has reduced “cashier” function for state parks



Put more hours/staff into resource management, facility
management, interpretation, grounds maintenance, law
enforcement, etc.
Very positive public response
Approximately 90% of vehicles who enter MT state parks are
in compliance per 2008 study
SB 388/389 & HB 4677/78 to
Implement Proposal
 Sponsored by Sens. Birkholz and Basham, Reps. Warren and
Meekhof and introduced in March 2009
 Identical bills in both chambers
 Bi-partisan sponsors in both chambers
 Bills are constitutional use of vehicle registration
 Is a fee, not a tax
 Voluntary, not mandatory due to opt out
 Other non-transportation uses of vehicle registration dollars


Specialty plates for MI state universities
Non-game wildlife, agricultural heritage, children’s trust fund,
lighthouses
 Opt out occurs in single registration transaction
 Don’t inconvenience consumers or SOS
Michigan scenario at 65% buy in
 Total revenue of $47 million
 Less 1/2% for Secretary of State is $46.75 million
 Of remaining $46.75 million
 $10.7 million to replace lost State Park MVP revenue
 $1.03 million to replace lost BAS MVP revenue
 Of remaining $35 million
 $17.5 million (50%) to state park infrastructure
 $10.5 million (30%) to state park operations


Focus on better maintenance, enforcement, interpretation
Focus on rail-trail state parks (e.g. Kal-Haven, FM White Pine, etc.)
 $3.5 million (10%) to local unit development grants
 $2.4 million (7%) to state forest recreation
 $1.0 million (3%) to historic/cultural DNR resources
Benefits
 Michigan and Michiganians reap the benefits
 Improved infrastructure in MI state parks, forests and local parks
 Strengthened state cultural resource base
 Improved image for MI as a tourism destination
 Stronger MI economy
 Convenient, no hassle entry to state parks for all MI registered
vehicles
 Better managed and maintained state parks and forest recreation
opportunities
 Better non-motorized trail system


More funding for state park trails, state forest pathways, equestrian trails
and blueways
Convenient for non-motorized trail users to finacially support their
interests
 Local units


Double typical amount of money available for development grants
Use same application as MNRTF, no duplication of effort
Conclusion
 First joint legislative hearing April 2, 2009
 Opposition from transporation/road interests

Want all vehicle related fees for roads
 Opposition from Secretary of State

Don’t want any more work
 Support from MI DNR
 Support from park and recreation professional
organizations
 Support from non-motorized trail groups
 Support from largest hunter/angler group
 Support from tourism industry, local economic