THE WISDOM OF THE ORG TABLE
Montana’s Stealth Park Fee, a Sequel
It's not what you do; it's how you do it.
By Bill Schneider, 9-13-09
The other day during my early morning shift downtown at the coffee shop at the ORG (Old Retired Guy) table, we turned our attention to how Montana funds its state parks system. Conversation at the ORG table is normally quite intellectual, by the way, and a lot of politicians could benefit from sitting in on our sessions. They’d sure find out what the ORGs really think about things.
We frequently discuss taxes (surprised?), and on that day I happened to mention I was riding my bicycle down to the clerk and recorder office after my morning IQ-boosting session to renew my vehicle registration.
I brought out my renewal card, and we analyzed it to death. I’ve been paying vehicle registration fees for a long time, and now, finally, thanks to the ORG table, I sort of understand what’s going on. And the ORGs say, this might be a good deal, but we don’t like the way the government does it.
Firsts off, even the ORGs think vehicle registration fees are fairly reasonable in Montana, so no issues there, but all theses other fees? How many people understand them?
Not many people, which is, obviously and regrettably, by design.
I wrote about this issue three years ago (click here), but nothing happened, so I thought I’d hit it again. Perhaps this time some state legislator will pick up this ball and run with it, introducing a bill to do it right and consequently increase the amount of money going into Montana’s parks system.
Your vehicle registration renewal card has four fees not really related to your vehicle.
First, you pay $5 to help out the Montana Highway Patrol (MHP). This is not optional, and I doubt anybody complains. The clerk who helped me said she never had a complaint on it, but that’s partly because very few vehicle owners even know about the fee, unless they’re sharp enough to decipher “MHPFEE,” which is how it’s stated on the card.
Ha, the government actually thought they could slip that one by the ORGs.
Even if people knew about the MHP fee, I suspect almost everybody would happily pay it. Who doesn’t appreciate having a highway patrol officer around when involved in an accident? Actually, we ORGs wouldn’t mind bumping that up to ten bucks.
Second are the $1 fees for the Organ Donor Awareness and Brain Injury Education. Nobody opposes these causes, of course, but these are “opt-in” fees, so you have to make a special effort to make sure you pay them. If you just read the total off the bottom and write the check, you don’t make these contributions. And the clerk isn’t going to ask if you want to donate. Consequently, according to my clerk anyway, almost nobody does it. When I did the earlier commentary on this, the Missoula-based Brain Injury Association said less than 0.5 percent took the time to opt in.
Lastly, we have the $4 park fee. No doubt this is a tremendous deal for Montanans. Out-of-staters still have to pay on-site fees when using Montana’s state parks (unless they’re in a vehicle with a Montana license plate), but we Montanans can use our wonderful park system all year as much as we want for a measly four bucks.
If you don’t agree how good we have it, go to most other states like Oregon, for example, which is hyperactive in collecting fees for everything. You can hardly drive by a state park on U.S. 101 and look at the ocean without having to pay $5 for the privilege.
So, what to do? I’ve already covered this with the good folks at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), who lobbied this through the legislature back in 2003. They say, it ain’t broke, Bill, so don’t try to fix it, but I say make the park fee mandatory, and while we’re at it, make it a nice round $5. I like parks just as much as highway patrol officers.
I understand why FWP doesn’t want to risk opening up this issue in the legislature and taking a chance they might lose a secure funding system, but I have to believe the legislature is mostly happy with this small park fee tacked onto vehicle registrations, but might be embarrassed by how their predecessors back in 2003 decided to make it a stealth fee.
Right now, roughly 10 percent of Montanans, at least according to my clerk, opt-out of the fee, and more might if they knew about it because the current system is, in a word, sneaky.
Let’s be straight up with people and make everybody pay the fee. Who doesn’t visit a state park once or twice per year or have family members who do? We all pay the MHP fee, even if we haven’t seen a patrol officer in years.
When I went to the clerk and recorder, I decided to opt-in both dollar fees and opt-out of the park fee. Instead, so I won’t feel like a freeloader, I’m sending a copy of this column and a $4 check to Joe Maurier, director of the FWP. Perhaps if he gets a few such letters, he’ll call up a friendly legislator and ask him or her to introduce a bill to make the state park fee mandatory, so we can all feel better about how government does things.
Footnote: Here’s the address: Joe Maurier, PO Box 200701, Helena, MT 59620-0701. You can email him here.
Bill, Surely you've seen how state park systems are faring in other states? Closed entrance gates, vandalism because of a lack of ranger presence, buildings falling apart and constant calls to sell the state parks to the highest bidder (typically folks from a big city somewhere). That's because they rely upon their state legislatures and governors to decide how much to fund the state parks each year.
Montana, on the other hand, has a much more stable system for funding the state parks. And every time I drive into my favorite Fishing Access Site or state park, I'm grateful that I'm not being nickled and dimed to death with entry fees.
Of course, you probably think that the excise tax on fishing equipment is sneaky, too.
Gee, I agree with Binky.
The old state of affairs was 15 bucks for a pass, I think. The new way, tourists still have to pay the 15 and/or fees but if you are in a Montana-registered vehicle, you're in. I like sticking it to evil tourists.
Thanks Bill, and you are correct, I've never noticed that at the bottom of the card. Certainly I do not mind paying this fee, and it should be mandatory. As you mentioned, everyone uses these facilities occasionally and if the fees are used for upkeep to the parks all the better.
Every year I travel the coastal highway, and never fail to notice how clean and well maintained these state parks in Washington and Oregon are, and I stop at many. I have never hesitated in putting my $5. in an envelope. Small price to pay for the priviledge of being able to use these areas. Montana could stand to learn from their system.
Unlike you, Skinner, who likes "sticking it to evil tourists", I have a little more pride about myself, and prefer to be proud of this country that is my home.
Comment By Westie, 9-13-09"go to most other states like Oregon, for example, which is hyperactive in collecting fees for everything. You can hardly drive by a state park on U.S. 101 and look at the ocean without having to pay $5 for the privilege."
You're a bit off-base here. Nearly all of the state parks (and there are a lot of them) are free. On the state park side, only seven parks charge, and all are right next to other parks that don't. And the state park fee is $3 per car. Not bad for a park system that doesn't get ANY tax funds, right?
http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/PARKS/dayuse.shtml
Mitch,
I'm sorry if you took me literally. Then again, the idea of cross subsidy of recreation, or robbing any peter to pay paul, is very popular and taken literally by many. Resort taxes? Skimming the tourists for "their share" of services. That's how the WF tourist tax was sold.
Westie's partly right - most of those coastal parks in OR are considered state highways and I don't think they've thought of turning them into toll roads yet. But, oceaside pullouts, Forest Service roadside stops, and BLM parking lots - you'll be paying for each of them.
'course, you could look at state parks as part of our homeland security.
Oregon's state parks charge $3 per vehicle, not $5, although they're considering raising the fees for the first time in 13 years, I think. And most of them on the coast are free, anyway. It's the feds who charge more, not the state parks in Oregon.
Comment By mdiehl, 9-14-09I grew up in Michigan where there were tiered fees for many of the state parks - on daily, weekly and a seasonal pass basis. At the same time, there were many picnic areas and pullout areas that were free. People understood that fees contributed to the upkeep of the parks. If you didn't want to pay the fee, you had options of other parks.
Comment By Paul, 9-19-09Bill,
Here's some data from July 11, 2009, Billings Gazette, which didn't include source of data:
By the numbers
54 - state parks
330 - state fishing access sites
39,633- acres in the state park system
1.8 million - state park visitors
16 percent - state park nonresident visitors
84 percent - state park resident visitors
$10.7 million - state parks division budget, 33 percent of which comes from the registration fee
$6.8 million - state parks capital program made up of federal grants and other dollars for building new sites and major maintenance
52 - state parks division permanent full-time employees
150-200 - state parks seasonal employees (equal to about 70 full-time employees)
3.7 million - visits to fishing access sites
148,000 - fishing access site campers
---
I'm way more upset about the value the State of Montana places on my 1996 vehicle for purposes of raising money through taxes, because the State declares my vehicle's value at almost eight times its actual value. And they refuse to change it. The result: I pay 10 times more in unreasonable and unjustifiable taxes than the 4-dollar fee for access to all those State Parks and Fishing Access Sites. I see an extraordinary benefit:cost ratio - to my advantage - for my $4. That pleases me.
In that same Gazette article, this information is attributed to Tom Reilly, assistant parks division administrator for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, of FWP:
So far, only 20 to 25 percent of Montanans licensing their vehicles have chosen to opt out of the fee ... .
I can't swear to that figure being a more accurate picture of the opt-outs than the 10 percent figure you attribute as coming from a clerk at your clerk and recorder's office.
If anything, maybe the Legislature should tack on a bunch more opt-out fees. Maybe then, more people would bother to look at their annual vehicle registration bill.
Your inferences about an apparent lack of attention vehicle owners pay to the parts of the sum on their vehicle registration bill may also explain the elected officials, tax levies, and ballot issue outcomes we get - if those vehicle owners also cast ballots.