DNR Letterhead

February 12, 2003

1. Bill Number and Sponsor:

House Bill No. 4085

Representative Middaugh, et al

2. Purpose:

This bill, as introduced, would amend the State Park Motor Vehicle Act to exempt recreational vehicles from the Motor Vehicle Permit requirement in campgrounds when a second vehicle is a part of the registered camp. The intent is to put campers who utilize recreational vehicles on a par with campers who utilize non-motorized camper trailers regarding the need to purchase the vehicle permits.

3. How This Legislation Impacts Current Programs in the Department:

The Motor Vehicle Permit Act currently requires that all motorized vehicles entering a State Park display a valid motor vehicle permit. This legislation would exempt recreational vehicles from that requirement under certain conditions. This would require a change in current Parks and Recreation Bureau policy and some re-training efforts for our field staff. This legislation would also have a negative financial impact on the Parks and Recreation Bureau revenue flow.

4. Introduced at Agency Request:

No.

5. Agency Support:

No.

6. Arguments Against the Bill:

This bill would reverse the intent of the enabling legislation which was to require all motor vehicles entering a State Park to display a valid Motor Vehicle Permit. This bill would also reduce the revenue generated from the sale of Motor Vehicle Permits by

eliminating the requirement for campers who have a second vehicle. Anticipated loss of revenue is estimated to be $250,000 annually. Revenue from the sale of Motor Vehicle Permits represents a significant portion of the Parks and Recreation Bureau operating budget.

This bill also adds a complication to the interpretation of the need for a permit. Presently, if a vehicle drives into a park, it needs a permit. This bill would inject a number of conditions whereby some RV’s would need a permit and others would not. This could result in some confusion on the part of our staff and the public which may result in variable enforcement.

In addition, this bill benefits the campers who utilize the greatest degree of utility services offered in the parks. Significant revenue has been expended in the past few years in order to upgrade electrical and other utility systems for the benefit of campers utilizing “big rigs” such as motor homes. Park managers face ever-increasing bills for electricity and other utilities consumed by campers. Campsites are priced by the amenities offered (electricity, modern toilets, etc.) and not by the camping unit. Thus, a tent camper situated next to a motor home camper is paying the same camping fee despite the fact that the motor home user is, most likely, consuming a larger proportion of electricity and other utilities.

7. Arguments for the Bill:

This bill could help RV owners gain a measure of “fairness” as compared to trailer owners. The objection stated by the RV owners is to question the fairness of requiring a permit on a motor home that is “like a trailer” when it is parked on a campsite. Trailers are not required to display permits because they are not motor vehicles. The differentiation lies in the fact that the RV is motorized and, thus, covered under the permit requirement.

8. State Revenue/Budgetary Implications:

The sale of Motor Vehicle Permits (MVP”S) generates approximately $10 million annually for the parks. About one-half of the MVP’s sold are purchased by campers. Motor home owners account for approximately ten percent of the camping use in Michigan State Parks and about one-half of the motor home campers would receive this benefit based on the conditions outlined in the proposed bill. This bill would reduce the revenue generated from the sale of MVP’s by approximately $250,000 annually.

9. Implications to Local Units of Government:

None.

10. Administrative Rules Implications:

Unknown.

11. Other Pertinent Information:

None.

12. User Groups/Customers that Support this Legislation:

Motor home and RV owners.

K. L. COOL

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

P&R