The park system's legal landscape also 

 changed during the 1990s. Passage of the 

 Primitive Parks Act (23-1-115 through 23-1- 

 118, MCA) eliminated entrance fees and 

 curtailed further development at 15 

 designated parks. Also, to prevent impacts to 

 landowners adjoining state parks, the 

 legislature established the Good Neighbor 

 Policy (23-1-126, MCA), which requires FWP 

 to place maintenance as a higher priority over 

 additional development at all state parks and 

 fishing access sites. 



While responding to these and other changes 

 and trends, parks management must also 

 confront challenges related to funding. Costs 

 continue to rise, but revenues— particularly 

 from existing fees and taxes— remain flat. On 

 the current course, FWP projects that 

 expenditures will eclipse revenues by 2006. 



In light of these and other trends, the 

 Executive Order directed the Futures 

 Committee to consider: 



Park fee revenues and funding sources 



Park resources 



Statutory park designations 



Park designations 



Potential long-term policy changes 



Distribution of state parks across the state 



Other policy considerations 



These items are covered in this report under 

 the broader headings of Statutory Framework, 

 Planning and Management, and Funding. 



The Executive OnJer also stated that the 

 Futures Committee's recommendations mtast: 



• Consider the original futures committee 

 report, the 2020 Vision for Montana State 

 Parks SystemPlan, and the 2001 

 performance audit conducted by the 

 Legislative Audit Division. 



• Consider the social and economic effects, 

 both positive and negative, of state 

 changes. 



. Consider the values and needs of all 



recreational users. 

 • Consider the financial and staffing needs 



of the state parks system. 

 . Be technically, legally, socially, and 



economically feasible to implement. 



A Deliberative Prcx:ess 



The Futures Committee met eight times in 

 nine months in communities across the state 

 to gather information, discuss the issues, and 

 develop its recommendations. Meetings were 

 facilitated by the Montana Consensus Council 

 and staffed by the council and Parks Division 

 personnel. 



Futures Committee members also toured ten 

 state parks, met with all seven regional parks 

 managers, and held public meetings in Helena, 

 Billings, Three Forks, Missoula, Dillon, 

 Glasgow, Glendive, and Bigfork 

 Representatives of a number of interest 

 groups, notably the Montana State Parks 

 Foundation and several local "friends of the 

 park" associations, attended meetings and 

 provided information, insights, and a broad 

 range of perspectives on the park system. The 

 Committee received written comments and 

 provided an opportunity for public comment 

 through the FWP web site. 



The State Parks Futures Committee II Ehaft 

 Report and Reoommsndations was released at the 

 end of July 2002, and public comments were 

 accepted through the end of September 2002. 

 Parks Division also held a statewide public 

 meeting on September 11, 2002, through 

 MetNet, the interactive video conferencing 

 network. About 30 people participated via 

 links in Billings, Bozeman, Dillon, Glasgow, 

 Great Falls, Flelena, Kalispell, Miles Qty, and 

 Missoula. Written and email comments were 

 received from a total of 19 individuals and 

 organizations. Some comments praised the 

 work of the committee, while others were 

 critical of specific recommendations. The 

 main themes regarding the committee's 



State Parks FtOures Carmttee, Decembers, 2002 



