Either strategy would allow FWP to eliminate 

 entrance fees to state parks for Montana 

 residents. The Futures Committee prefers a 

 mill levy over the license plate fee because the 

 license plate fee would be difficult to 

 administer, many people have more than one 

 vehicle, and it would be less progressive, with 

 a greater financial impact on low-income 

 citizens. 



The Futures GDmmittee recognizes that 

 implementing either one of these strategies 

 and allowing free admission to Montana 

 residents may not only increase the number of 

 people visiting state parks, but also the 

 potential for vandalism and the need for 

 enforcement. 



Strategy 6 (67 % support) : The 

 Legislature should levy a tax on rental 

 cars, 90 percent of which are rented by 

 non-residents, and allocate all of the 

 proceeds to the state paries. A 4% tax 

 would raise about $1.3 million annually. 



Strategy 7 (56 % support) ; Parks Division 

 should create a pilot project at two state 

 pariu - one urfjan and one rural - to 

 maximize the collection of fees (see 

 Appendix H). This will require additional 

 resources from the Legislature. 



Regional park managers say that controlled, 

 staffed entrance points are needed across the 

 park system. Having a person at the entrance 

 ends up being efficient and cost effective 

 because it heads off many problems before 

 they occur. Charging a fee and staffing an 

 entrance station increases visitor respect for 

 the park and dramatically reduces vandalism 

 and other problems. Managers can focus the 

 use of entrance staff during high-use times — 

 certain seasons, weekends, and holidays. 

 During low-use periods, the staff can work in 

 other areas, such as weed control, 

 maintenance and repair, etc. 



Staffing entrance stations adds a cost (paying 

 the person to be there to collect fees), but 

 creates revenues and savings by (1) enhancing 

 revenues (fees collected); (2) reducing 

 vandalism; (3) reducing costs of after-the-fact 

 enforcement; and (4) potentially increasing 

 visitation (because people enjoy a better 

 experience). To cover the cost of staffing park 

 entrances, two visitors an hour (at $4 each) 

 equals the hourly wage of a staff person ($8 

 an hour). 



Strategy 8 (56 % support); The 

 Legislature should raise the fee for a 

 motorboat decal from $2.50 ($0.50 of 

 which goes to Paiks) to $10 ($6 of which 

 would go to Parks). Some Committee 

 members felt this increase was reasonable 

 because $10 would be a small fee relative to 

 the cost of most motorboats. Other 

 Committee members said that motorboat 

 owners already pay a number of fees or taxes 

 that contribute revenue to state parks and 

 other programs, and such an increase was 

 unwarranted. 



Strategy 9 (56 % support); The Pariis 

 Division should impose a fee on 

 launching motoriioats. The Futures 

 Committee agreed that this wovdd not be 

 necessary given their recommendation to raise 

 the fee for motorboat decals. 



Strategy 10 (44 % support); The 

 Legislature should institute a fee decal ($5 

 to $10) for non-motorized boats. Some 

 Committee members said that non-motorized 

 boaters who use public boat access points and 

 other facilities should share in the costs of 

 providing those facilities. Others argued that 

 basic public access to a public resource should 

 remain free. Also, boaters using private access 

 would resist paying for a decal, enforcement 

 would be difficult and costly, and the issue 

 might be better addressed in a river recreation 

 planning process. 



12 



State Parks FtOures Comnittee, DeoenierJ, 2002 



