INVESTIGATION OF THE VEHICLE ENTRANCE FEE IN MICHIGAN STATE PARKS Thesis for tho Degree of M; S. MICHIGAN 5m“; UNIVERSITY Lyle W. Hannah: 1963 O ‘u-- 0...-- weov-finfit -“~:t‘." q .‘5. ‘- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIHIHIHHIIIIIIWUIIWIIUIIIIIIlllllllllll’IIIIIII ‘f 1/ 3 1293 106;? 8127 LIBRARY Michigan State . University ABSTRACT INVESTIGATION OF THE VEHICLE ENTRANCE FEE IN MICHIGAN STATE PARKS by Lyle Willard Hannahs Most state agencies today are faced with the problem of finding additional sources of revenue with which to meet the ever increasing demands on their resources. Park and recre- ation departments are often among the least powerful of the departments in competition for these funds. Parks do not have the special interest that organizations set up to fight heart disease or polio have, but with an increase in leisure time they are becoming more of a public concern. As far as a revenue tax is concerned the parks and recreation departments are at somewhat of a disadvantage, as most of the older, established agencies have claimed most of the best tax sources. For instance, auto licenses and gasoline taxes are earmarked for public highway purposes; some of the state income taxes are for school purposes; game and fish monies are used for game and fish purposes, etc. State parks and recreation departments would find it difficult to establish claims on these taxes. This is not necessarily the case in every state. Washington and Oregon get money from drivers' license fees for park purposes, and Wisconsin has a $50 million land acquisition program financed by a cigarette tax, and there are other exceptions. From this a general idea of the relative "ability" of the state Lyle W. Hannahs parks and recreation departments to Obtain funds may be de- rived. Our state park agencies are not receiving adequate funds through legislative appropriations to meet the increasing de- mand for these recreation areas and parks. If state park systems are to have adequate funds for capital improvements, other alternatives of deriving revenue must be investigated, among these alternatives is the entrance fee. Charging entrance fees to state parks and other public parks has been a subject that has presented many controversial issues in the past and will continue to do so in the future. An entrance fee may be desirable in one circumstance and possibly not desirable or acceptable under a different set of circumstances. These will vary with the type of public park being considered, the degree of deve10pment of the park, the demand for the park by the general public, the operating budgets of the park or park systems, the location of the park, the degree of development of the park and the amount of disposable income of the park users. If an entrance fee is instituted in a park system, the revenue may be used for operation, administration, mainten- ance,]and acquisition, capital improvements or combinations of these categories. Where the revenue can best be used to benefit the park user, again will vary with the circumstances present. Parks and recreation supported by public funds, as con- tributing to the public welfare and liability, both present Lyle W. Hannahs strong arguments against fees and charges. Several strong arguments for fees and charges are also presented. The "pros" and "cons" of the entrance fee have been investigated with resulting recommendations pertaining to the State of Michigan. Examinations of various materials including periodicals, newspapers, books, Federal and state documents have been used in this study. These have also been strongly supported by interviews with men in reaponsible positions with the Michigan Conservation Department. Also, a questionnaire was distributed which provided significant facts for this in- vestigation. The experiences of other states having an en- trance fee have also been discussed and presented to provide a comparison with Michigan's experience with the vehicle entrance fee. INVESTIGATION OF THE VEHICLE ENTRANCE FEE IN MICHIGAN STATE PARKS By Lyle W. Hannahs A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advance Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture .and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development March 1963 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to Professor Leslie M. Reid of the Park Management Section, Department of Re- source Development, who served as chairman of my graduate committee. Be very conscientiously guided my efforts through- out this thesis. ‘Also, I would like to thank Professor Raleigh Barlcwe, Professor Louis F. Twardzik, Professor M.H. Steinmueller and Professor Joseph M. Prochaska, who served as members of my graduate committee and ccntributed.material and constructive criticism. Also, I am grateful to the states that answered the questionnaire I distributed, which was a significant part of this study. The Parks and Recreation Division of the Michigan De- partment of Conservation helped considerably to contribute toward this thesis. I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Charles Harris, Chief of Field Operations, for allotting valuable time to discuss my thesis with.me and-encourage me in this study and also to Mr. Harold MacSwain, Assistant Chief of the Parks and Recreation Division. In addition my thanks are extended to Mr. Gerald J. Ernst, of the Wisconsin Conservation Department, for typing and constructive criticism of this thesis during his Christmas vacation. Lyle W. Hannahs ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION . . . . . Nature of the Problem . Importance of the Study Objective . . . . . . . Scope . . . . . Method of Approach . . . O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O FACTORS AFFECTING PARK DEMAND . . . . . . The Purpose of Parks . . . . . . . . . . Classification of Parks . . . . . Changing Concepts in Parks in the United States . . . . Factors Affecting Demand for Recreational F83111t138 e e e e e POPUIation e e e e Transportation . . Increased Incomes Leisure Time . . . Advertising . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O AND’EXPERIENCE IN OTHER STATES . . . . . Classification of Revenue Producing Facil- ities O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Admission Fees e e e e e e e e e e e e Rental Fees. 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 User Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sales Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . License and Permit Fees. . . . . . . . Special Service Fees . . . . . . . . . Entrance Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . survey 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 Preparation of the Questionnaire . . . Results e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 Purpose Fee was Used for . . . . . . . Areas Entrance Fee Collected In. . . . Charge For State Park Entrance . . . . The Methods of Collecting Entrance Fees. Manual Fee Collection. . . . . . . . Mechanical Methods of Fee Collection . Advantages and Disadvantages of Manual and Mechanical Systems . . . . . . . iii Page ii \DUHfl -#4>#&NNH‘ ll 15 17 19 22 CLASSIFICATION OF REVENUE PRODUCING FACILITIES 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 29 31 32 33 35 IV. THE ENTRANCE FEE IN THE MICHIGAN SYSTEMeeeeeeeeee Dahle's StUdye e e e e e e Attempts to Get More Revenue Supplemental Appropriations Cost of Collection . . . STATE PARK Scheduled Improvements and Land Acquisi- tion . . Expenditures of the First $5,000,005 Bonds. . . . . . . . . . V. "PROS” AND "CONS" OF THE ENTRANCE FEE. Rationale for the Entrance Fee Wirth-Lieber Theories. . Methods of Financing . . Contemporary Theories. . Texas Study. . . . Cost Per Visitor in Michigan ParkSe O O O O O O O 0 Economic Benefits of Parks . Encourage Private Development. Encourage County and Township Par Rationale Against the Entrance Public Acceptance. . Cost and Benefits. . . . General Welfare . . . . Liability. . . . . . . . Test in Court Claims . Special Taxes and Funds VI 0 RECOMNDATIONS. O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . iv. St . e e e e a e e 0 Fee c... (beeeoee oeeeeeefi'eee of. 102 VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF APPENDICES Questionnaire Cover Letter. . . . . . . . . Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . Population Trends of the State of Michigan. Class of Workers in the State of Michigan . Age by Five Year Groups for the State of Michigan . . . . . Income for 1959 and 1949 of Families for the State of Michigan . . . . . . Privately Owned Motor Vehicle Registrations in the United States. e e e e e 0 Total Attendance to Michigan State Parks from 1952 to 1961. . . . . . . Revenue From Operations in Michigan State Parks 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 Expenditures by Division of Parks and Recreation. . . . . . Attendance to Michigan State .Parks (1960 and 1961) and Results of the Entrance Fee on Attendance and Revenue Derived . . Summary of Questionnaire Returns. . . . . . 97 100 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Most state agencies today, are faced with the problem of finding additional sources of revenue with which to meet the ever increasing demands on their resources. Park and recreation departments are often among the least powerful of the departments in competition for these funds. Parks do not have the special interest that organizations esta- blished to fight heart disease or polio have, but with an increase in leisure time they are beccming more of a public concern. is far as a revenue tax is concerned the parks and recreation departments are at somewhat of a disadvantage, as many of the older, established agencies have claimed most of thebest tax sources. For instance, auto license and gas- oline taxes are earmarked for public highway purposes; some of the state income taxes are for school purposes; game and fish monies are used for game and fish purposes. State parks and recreation departments would find it difficult to establish claims on these taxes. This is not necessarily the case in every state, washingtcn and Oregon get money from drivers' license fees for park purposes, and Wisconsin has a 350 million land acquisition program financed by a cigarette tax, and there are other exceptions. From this a general idea of the relative "ability" of the state parks and recreation departments to obtain funds may be de- rived. -2... Most state park agencies are not receiving adequate funds through legislative appropriations to meet the in- creasing demand for these recreation areas and parks. If state park systems are to have adequate funds for capital improvements, other alternatives of deriving revenue must be investigated, among these alternatives is the entrance fee. N t 0 th Pro lem The rationale for charging entrance fees to state parks has been a subject which has been approached in differ- ent ways and has had several different opinions advanced both for and against such a charge. If a fee is charged for entering a state park, there must be an objective in mind for such a fee. The purpose of the fee should not be to discourage or limit park users, but if a charge is instituted the objective should be to derive a net profit. A.fee may be desirable in one state and possibly not desirable in another state, depending on the degree of devel- opment of the state parks, the type of state parks, the de- mand for state parks, the legislative appropriations for these parks, the location of the state parks and the type of facilities provided within these areas. An exploration of the entrance fee in Michigan State Parks will constitute the basis for this thesis, with the realization that the conclusions and ideas developed may not relate to other states and their state park agencies. The -3- quality, type and number of private recreational developments must also be considered. Importance of the Study Several problems have arisen with the concept of charg- ing a state park entrance fee. Capital derived from this fee may be spent for operation, maintenance, administration or capital investments. There have been many different opinions as to where therevenue should be used to best benefit the park users. The state has a definite responsibility to provide state parks and recreation areas to its citizens. This has a di- rect relationship to the decision to charge for entering. Special facilities in parks and user oriented parks that may be established to alleviate a local recreation situation, may possibly be beyond the responsibility of the state to provide. If this is true the entrance fee revenue could be used to establish areas, as a supplement to the states responsibility. An entrance fee may not be the best solution to provide additional revenue for the state park agency. Problems often arise from entrance fees. The opposing arguments may be strong enough to offset any benefits derived from the use of fees. This study will investigate the "pros" and "cons" of en- trance fees and indicate the responsibility state park agencies have to provide areas and facilities of state significance, and also decide what value entrance fees have in relation to the provision of supplementary facilities and areas. -11... Objectixe The objective of this study is to explore the ration- ale for the existing entrance fee in the Michigan State Park system, and to formulate and obtain conclusions relating to the responsibility of the Michigan Division of Parks and Recreation to provide recreational facilities for the general public. The revenue producing abilities of the entrance fee will also be investigated. A justification for the expendi- ture of public funds for parks and recreation, as contributing to the public welfare, will also be explored. .8229. This study will deal with the investigation of the en- trance fee for Michigan State Parks. The favorable points of the entrance fee will be discussed and explored as well as the arguments against the use of it. It is hoped that the principles developed by the author will be applicable to other situations as well as to the state parks of Michigan. Facts and figures have been used from Michigan to substantiate and uphold the ideas formulated in this study, but the concepts may be applicable to other states. Mgthod 9f Approgch Examination of available reference materials, interviews with persons familiar with the problems of an entrance fee and correspondence with various states having a state park entrance fee have been employed in this study. CHAPTER II FACTORS AFFECTING PARK DEMAND The Purpogg of Parkg A park is defined as an area of land or water set aside for recreational use. In this thesis a park will relate to an area owned and operated by the State of‘Michigan as a state park or a state recreation area, unless specifically stated otherwise. Although the specific purposes of parks may vary, they all are established to provide a means for the relaxation and refreshment of the mind and body. Parks are a service provided to the public. A park can be justified from an economic, social, educational, or inspirational aspect. The basic assumption is that the use will be constructive and wholesome, and of general acceptance to the public. ‘The purpose of many state park agencies, in the past, has been to establish park areas of less than national signifi- cance, but of state-wide significance. This concept may now be changing with an increase in potential park users and pop- ulation concentrations. Parks of less than state-wide signi- ficance may be justifiable if they perform a service to the people and are in demand. C 1 ice 0 0 Par There have been many park classifications. The system that is used in this study was developed by Marion Clawscn.1 __ 1Marion Clawson, The Dynamics of Park Demand, (New Fbrk 36, New York: Park, Recreation and Open Space Project of the Tri-State New York Metropolitan Region, R.P.A. Bulletin 94; 1960), page 28. -5- -5- When using this classification it must be realized that there is an overlapping of the categories used in actual practice, but a basis has to be developed for use in this_thesis. Dr. Clawson classifies parks in three categories: (1) user- oriented, (2) intermediate and (3) resource-oriented. The user-oriented park is established as an outlet for areas of population concentration and is often deve10ped with active or participant type of recreational facilities. Some natural features may be artificially introduced to give an aesthetically pleasing appearance. These parks are often located near areas of population concentration and are usually deve10ped with man-made facilities. Intermediate parks are a combination of user-oriented and resource-oriented areas. These parks are usually endowed with some interesting and beautiful natural qualities, and often have some type of active recreational facilities inte- grated into the park scheme. They are usually within a few hours drive of heavily populated areas. The resource-oriented park is usually established be- cause of some outstanding natural, historical, geological, scenic or archeological value of wide significance, which in itself will make the park unique and interesting. These areas may be heavily used, but are significant mainly for the values previously mentioned. These parks may not necessarily be near areas of population concentration, but are found where the resources naturally occur. -7- Changing Concepts in Parks in the United States Colonial history in the United States shows very little emphasis on recreation. As parks began to develop in the VUnited States, this early attitude toward recreation was still prevalent. The first parks such as the Boston Commons established in 1634, the Public Gardens established by James Ogelthorpe in Savannah, Georgia, and the public squares de- signated in Philadelphia, by William Penn all show the early attitude toward recreation. The parks of this period were not designed for active recreation, but rather for a passive "type" of recreation. Some early "areas" were set aside for the- ‘ public that were of an active type, but probably could hardly have been called recreation areas in this period. Such an area may be exemplified by a law passed in Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641. This law stated that all great ponds over ten acres would be open to the public forever for hunting and fishing. The early attitudes toward recreation were slow to change and are exemplified very well through the development of parks in the United States. Many of the early parks con- tained few facilities for active recreation, as already men- tioned. In the late 1800's and the early 1900's demand came for providing ggtive recreational developments such as ball diamonds, playgrounds, and golf courses to be established in many of the previously established passive parks. There was a growing movement during this period to use public areas for more active forms of recreation. As the num- -8- bars of this group grew, the early parks began to surrender their passive nature to playgrounds, athletic fields, city parks, and other active types of recreational developments. Today, recreation is considered desirable, and by many peOple it is considered a necessity for a normal and produc- tive life. Grade school pupils are taught constructive ways to use their free time. The above discussion has been mainly concerned with parks of a local nature, established to serve an area of pop- ulation concentration. Federal and state parks began to evolve at a later date and will now be explored. National parks were not the result of public demand as were the development of the active type areas already described. The national parks were established by farsighted individuals to preserve fbr all time the outstanding examples of nature's work for future generations to enjoy. Hot Springs National Reservation was the first such area set aside in 1832. In 1864 the Yosemite Valley was granted to California by the Federal government, which became the first State Park in the United States. In 1872, the first national park was desig- nated, which was Yellowstone. All of these areas were set aside because of outstanding natural features. In 1891 the Forest Reserve Act was passed to set aside forest reserves on public domain. President Cleveland and President Theodore Roosevelt set aside 175 million acres of land under this act, out of the 181 million acres now in existence. In 1905 the United States Forest Service was or- -9- ganized to manage these lands, which now offer wide opportun- ities for wild-land recreational use. This recreational use was officially recognized with the passing of the Multiple Use Forestry Act in 1960. The policy of the Forest Service as established in 1905, is to manage their lands for the per- manent good of all people, and not the temporary benefit of a few. Yosemite, in California, as already mentioned, became the first state park in 1864. In 1885 Niagara Falls became a state park, followed in 1895 by Mackinaw Island in Michigan. The Palisades Interstate Park of New York and New Jersey was also formed in 1895. Up until 1920 only twenty states had any state parks at all. Steve Mather and the Secretary of the Interior, John Payne, saw a need for state parks to supplement the national parks. Many lands of less than national significance were being constantly proposed by various groups to be considered as future national park sites. Many of these areas did not meet the standards that were established for national park sites. As a result, many proposed sites were rejected by the National Park Service. Many of these rejected areas were unique and of interest to the public. They could be established or considered as potential parks of a lesser than national significance.2 In 1921, largely through the efforts of Steve Mather, a 2 Robert Shankland, Steve Maths; 9; the Natigggl P§§§g, (New York: Published by Alfred . Knoph; Second Edition; 954) p. 185 -10- conference was held at Des Moines, Iowa to promote the de- velopment of state parks. Over 200 delegates attended from twenty-five states.3 The National Conference on State Parks was established as a result of this conference. The slogan of the conference was to have, "A State Park Every Hundred Miles". The National Park Service intended to cooperate by (1) providing a clearing-house for state park information; (2) supplying fund raising publicity; (3) spotting state parks on National Park Service maps; (4) advising on administrative problems; (5) assisting in the procurement of federal lands for state parks; (6) assisting in timber preservation. State parks were also established through the efforts of other agencies and persons. One such organization that was very successful was the Save-the-Redwoods League. The League wanted to acquire the best redwood acreage in Northern California to preserve the trees and incorporate them in a state park area. As time has progressed, state parks have expanded and grown in number. State parks have been established on lands that have been given as gifts to the state, that have been pur- chased, that have reverted to the state through tax delin- quency, that have been traded, and that have been donated by the Federal government. 3Ibid. -11- State parks and particularly the state parks of Michigan, are the chief concern of this thesis, so they will be explored more carefully. Suggested criteria for state parks have been proposed by the National Conference on State Parks.4 States are usual- ly comprised of areas having scenic qualities, scientific value, historical significance, arche010gica1 value, or other recreational significance. State parks should conserve ex- amples of these outstanding natural and cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of the public. They should provide a non-urban type of recreational opportunities, that are normally beyond the responsibility of the local political subdivisions. Commercial exploitation should be prohibited from these areas. Fa o fee 1 f R e onal F cilit a Population Michigan's total population in 1960 was 7,823,194, rank- ing seventh in papulation of the 50 states. Of this total figure 305,953 persons live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan which is approximately 3.9% of the total population of the state. Approximately 29% of Michigan's land area is in the Upper Peninsula. Much of this land is still open in forests and farms. Another figure of relative importance are the 4 U.S. Department of Interior, Gu e i a, (National Conference on State Parks in cooperation t the National .Park Service), volume I, Section 2, page 1. -12- statistics for Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties which com- prise 4% of the land area of Michigan and have 48% of the pop- ulation of the state.5 Michigan's population has increased 22.8% in the past ten years. This increase in the population has brought an increase in the number of potential park users in Michigan. As already mentioned, the population of Michigan is con- centrated largely in one area around Detroit. There are 92,000 male and female workers employed in agriculture or related fields in Michigan and 2,600,000 in non-agricultural jobs. A large number of the non-agricultural job works are wage and salary workers employed by the industries and re- 6 Many of these jobs are indoor jobs of a routine nature. Often these lated service establishments in the Detroit area. persons have little opportunity to enjoy natural or resource- oriented recreational facilities. These persons, relatively, have a lesser opportunity to make use of state parks. As a result, the demand on local active type recreational facili- ties is quite heavy. The state parks are often used by many of these peOple on weekends and also on vacation trips. These facts show that a large percentage of Michigan's population is in one concentrated area in the Detroit vicinity. Parks of state caliber are relatively limited and in some areas close to non-existent. As these people are employed in 5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Eighteggth angus of thg Uniteg Stgteg; 1960. Mumps; of Inhgbitgnts, page 1 . IQ g. -13- a routine type of indoorIork for the most part, they are de- manding relief from the daily routine and urban scene. These workers are removed from regular contact with the natural en- vironment. °Michigan has 183,376 acres of state parks and re- creation land, and of this total only 21,567 acres are found in Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties:p The important com- parison here is that while these three counties have 48% of the state's population, they only have 12% of the total state park area. It is obvious that there is a need for a better distri- bution of state park and recreation areas. Additional state parks with varying types of recreation should be established near the population concentration. This is very important for 'two reasons. The first reason is that these people should have access to recreational facilities on the state level, as the rest of the citizens of Michigan do. Second, physical damage may be done to park lands by excessive use, especially if inappropriate facilities or activities are installed and carried on in these areas.7 Michigan's population is not only increasing; it is also experiencing a greater diversification of age classes, all requiring their own recreational needs. The number of youths, ages up to 14 years is comprising a greater segment of the 7From information obtained at the Office of the Division of Parks and Recreation, Michigan Department of Conservation. -14- total population. This group is relatively unproductive and demands a higher use of recreational facilities. They demand a more active type of recreation, such as hicking, swimming, organized sports and similar activities. Another group that is taking a higher percentage of the total population structure is the older retired persons. This group has different types of recreational needs and de- sires, than do the younger segments of the population. With a prolonged life expectancy, due to advanced medical science, this group needs to be given more consideration than in the pest. More facilities have to be provided to handle the various age requirements when planning for future expansion. On table III of the appendix, the increases and decreases in age groups may be seen. The male and female segments of the population both increased up to the age of 14 years, ex- cept the 10 to 14 year old class of the females that declined by four tenths of one percent. Also, the number of persons 50 years and over has increased in both the male and female groups, compared to the 1930 statistics. These statistics substantiate the increasing diversity of age groups in the Michigan population structure.8 By the year 2000 the popu- lation of the United States is expected to reach 350,477,000 persons with 73.4% living in urban areas and 26.6% living in 8 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Eigtteegth Cegsus gt thg Unitgg Statgg; 1960 - Number of I b tents. -15- rural areas, compared to a population now of approximately 180,000,000 with 63% of the persons residing in urban areas and 37% in rural areas.9 Transportation Through the years man has developed better and faster methods of transportation. In the Early American Colonies, most of the travel was by foot or horse. In the Nineteenth Century, steamboats, railroads, and the horse and buggy facil- itated faster and more comfortable transportation. The aver- age man was not affected by rail and steamboat travel. They were still too expensive in terms of limited income by this class. Their effect on the political life and economy of the nation was great, but their impact on outdoor recreation was modest.lo By 1922 the automobile provided one half of the total personal transportation of the country. Detroit, Michigan became the largest automobile manufacturing center in the world. The average per capita travel in 1922 was 1,600 miles with 86% by automobile. In 1956 the travel per capita was 5,080 miles with 87% by automobile.11 It is hard to conceive the impact of the automobile and limited access highways on the recreational demand of state 90utdoor Recreational Resources Review Commission, Ppojgptions to the Yoga; 1216 apd 2909 Population (Washington 25, D.C., United States Government Printing Office, January, 1962). Pages 5 and 8. 10Marion Clawson, The pxngpicg pt Park Depang, (New York 36, New York: Park, Recreation and Open Space Project of the Tri-State New York Metropolitan Region, R.P.A. Bulletin 94; l960)11page 23. Ibig. -15- park lands in Michigan. The number of passenger cars pro-. Jected for 1975 is an increase of nearly 80% above the num- ber registered for 1959.12 This new degree of mobility will probably increase the pressure on recreation sites that are now considered remote. It will probably have less signi- ficance on the demand for user oriented sites adjacent to metropolitan areas or other parks of strategic location, which are used for daily or weekend use and are within rela- tively short distance of these areas. The largest percentage of Michigan State Park users are from the three-county Detroit area. Of the total number of park users 41.5% came from this region. The reason most per- sons visit a Michigan State Park is ”because it is closest to heme". Other reasons frequently cited for visiting apartic- ular park are:13 1. Possibility for camping near a body of water. 2. Less crowded. 3. Cleanliness of park. 4. Safety (children can play with less necessity for supervision.) Air travel may become more important in the future than it is now. It is hard to predict what the resulting increase 12Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Out- door Recreation for America, a report prepared by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, (Washington 25, D. 0.: United States Government Printing Office, January, 1962 page 31. 13Thomas Dahle, fich;g% State Pg}: Uggfig SurveE, (East Lansing, Michigan: Co age 0 usinese and b ic e ations, M. S. U., 1956), pp. 7 & 8. -17- of air travel, both commercial and private, will have on the demand for state park use in Michigan. Possibly it will al- low easier access and use of outdoor recreational land in the Upper Peninsula to persons in metropolitan areas. The 923; cor R cre tio Re 0 c Rev ew Co sion has stated that time is the greatest limiting factor in outdoor recreational use, followed by disposable income for recreation. The air- plane would shorten time of travel considerably, but when relating to the median income of the family of Michigan, it would be beyond the present means of these families to rent an airplane for a weekend. Other methods of travel in the future may also affect recreational opportunities and park use. Two factors have to be considered which are the time and the cost of travel. is time and cost of travel diminish, many areas that are con- sidered hard to reach today may become less so in the future. Vehicles that ride on a cushion of air a short distance a- bove the ground or water, private airplanes or other modes of transportation may change the present time and cost of travel in the future. The changes may be even more radical than the changes of the past 60 years. Increased Incomes The second major factor affecting outdoor recreation is the amount of income per year. Outdoor recreation, such as camping, hiking, swimming, and the use of other park facili- ties, is one of the less expensive forms of recreation. The amount of disposable income per family has been estimated at ~18- $l,906 for 1960 and has been estimated as being $4,104 by the year 2000.14 One factor that is important to consider is that there will be more competition for the disposable income, which makes this figure less accurate to predict recreational de- mand. An example is comparing today with a period 30 years ago. Today money is spent on such items as television, elec- tric knife sharpeners for the housewife, more household appliances, and many other items that have entered the mar- ket in competition for the dollar. This may also be pro- jected into the future; items considered luxuries today may be considered necessities in the future. Overall it has been predicted that the total amount of money spent for outdoor recreation will increase. In 1954 approximately thirty billion dollars was spent for outdoor recreation and forty billion was spent in 1960.15 The median income of families in the state of Michigan has increased significantly from 1949 to 1959. The median income for 1949 was $3,588,and for 1959 was $6,256. Many more families are now in the $5,000 a year income range and fewer families are in the $4,000 a year and lower income bracket than in 1949.16 11;Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Pro- jgctions to the Years 1216 and 2900: Economic Growth' Popu- latigg, Labor Forge, Leisure and ngggpgrtation. 15Ibig. 16U.S. Bureau of the Census, E ht enth Ce su o the Ugitgg States; 1260. In a recent issue of Time Magazine the following article was printed: During the 1950's the number of U.S. agricultural works dropped by 37% or from 7,047,000 to 4,415,000 while manufacturing employees jumped by 21% from 15,306,000 to 18,535,000. During the same period, the whole structure of United States employment changed. The number of work- ers in professional and related services scared by 58%, those involved in finances and real estate increased by 41%, and those in public administration by 27%. At the same time, the number of workers in coal mining drapped by 56%, those in railroad and railway by 31%, and those in textile product industries by 21%. For experienced men, the highest median wage was 37,547 in the legal and engineering and other profes- sional services. Following closely were median earn- ings of $6,521 in petroleum and coal products, $6,373 in communications and 86,018 in aircraft and parts man- ufacturing. For women the highest median wage was in railroads and railway express with $4 435, while petrol- eum and coal products followed with 3 ,111 andlmotor vehicle and equipment industry offered $4,083. Lei sure Time Today mass production has become very important. Each person has his own job that relates to the total good of all. Specialization and the pride of self-accomplishment have been eliminated for higher production rates. Some advantages have been derived from mass production, as a result less expensive items and modern technical inno- vations have affected our living standards. Thus the average person is better able to spare time and money both for spare time activities. 17Statistics, "Time", December 28, 1962, page 18. -20.. The average work week is declining, which will affect the demand for recreational facilities. In 1970 the average work week will be 35.4 hours and by 2000 it will be 30.7 hours. (Estimation) ‘8 The use of this leisure time may affect different types of recreational areas. For example, if the working day was made shorter the demand for local, city or county recreation areas would most likely increase. If a shorter work week was instituted allowing a three-day weekend, the demand for state parks would probably increase. A longer annual vacation would in all probability increase tourism and have a higher demand on national forest recreation areas or on national parks. A.major development since World War II has been an in- crease in paid annual vacations. In 1960 the average annual paid vacations was two weeks. By the year 2000 the estimated annual paid vacation will be three and.nine tenths weeks.‘9 With the shortening of the work week there may be a tendency for the worker to acquire two jobs. If this happens it will certainly have a negative affect on the demand for outdoor recreation, as time will be limited for leisure. If a worker's salary will be diminished by a shorter work week, or his individual concept favors money income over leisure time, workers would probably forego the leisure time in favor 1EOutdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Pro- jections to the Years 1216 and 2000: Economic Growth, Popu- latiop, Labor Force, Leisure, and Transportation, A report prepared by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (Washington 25, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, Januai§1b1362), page 68. -21- of a higher income. The goods made possible for his pur- chase by the higher income may result in a sacrifice of lei- sure time . Shorter work weeks may become a necessity as many people are out of jobs, partly because of'automation. Work sharing may become necessary and standard. Another factor of importance is the increasing number of people entering into the work force at an older ago. To- day, child labor laws prevent children from starting at many jobs until they are at least 16 years of age, and many start later. There has also been a rise in the number of retired persons. Most people past the age of 65 still have suffic- ient income to support themselves and usually have enough disposable income to spend a portion on recreation. Such persons usually derive funds from social security, retire- ment plans of various sorts, life insurance policies, and part-time jobs. The housewife can also allow more time for recreation due to modern innovations which make her chores easier. The amount of income usually dictates to some extent the type of recreational pursuits the family will partici- pate in. The most common outdoor recreational activities are walking, swimming and picnicking.2o These are all rela- tively lower cost activities. Such activities as boating, water skiing, golf, camping, and others have relatively 20Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 2339 o r reation or erica, A report prepared by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, (Washington 25, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, January 1962), page 3 -22- higher costs for equipment, which often limits participation. Advertising Advertising has had an influence on recreational de- mands. Magazines advertise recreational opportunities and supply travel literature. Several magazines are circulated that stimulate interest to various groups, such as photo- graphy, hunting and fishing, boating, archery and other groups. Books and nature guides help persons gain higher intel- lectual experiences and enjoyment from their outdoor recre- ational adventures. Road maps have state parks, campgrounds, historic areas and other areas offering outdoor recreational opportunities clearly marked. All of these have contributed to the changing attitudes and encouragement of the demands for outdoor recreation. CHAPTER III CLASSIFICATION OF REVENUE-PROQUCING FACILITIES AND EXPERIENCE IN OTHER STATES CLASSIFICATION OF REVENUE-PRODUCING FACILITIES Before exploring the entrance fee in Michigan State Parks, a classification system should be established to dis- tinguish the entrance fee from various other fees that may be incurred in state parks. The following classifications have resulted from a rec- ognition of the need for standards of classification to clari- fy further research. The following classification was pre- pared by the Revenue-Producing Facilities Committee of the American Institute of Park Executives in 1962.21 A Fee Charges made to enter a building, structure, or natural chamber are designated as admission fees. These locations usually offer an exhibit, show, ceremony, performance, demon- stration, or special entertainment. Entry and exit is normal- ly controlled and attendance is regulated. Examples are: Arena Grandstand Museum Aquarium Historical building Music Temple Cavern Mine Observation Tower Flower Conservatory Monument Observatory 21American Institute of Park Executives, "Classifi- cation of Revenue-Producing Facilities", (Oglebay Park, Wheeling, West Virginia, 1962), Mimeographed. -23- -24- Ren F Payment made for the privilege of exclusive use of tan- gible property of any kind is considered a rental fee. This fee gives the patron the right of enjoying all advantages de- rivable from the use of the property without consuming, de- stroying, or injuring it in any way. Examples are: Archery Equipment Golf Cart Skis Bicycle Golf Clubs Steam Bath Boat Horse Stroller Cabin Lodge Tennis Racket Canoe Parking Toboggan Carriage Party Room Wheel Chair Checking Facility Pay Toilet Fishing Equipment Public Address Equipment User Fggs When a charge is made for the use of a facility, par- ticipation in an activity, or as a fare for a controlled ride it is referred to as a user fee. The patron usually enjoys the privilege simultaneously with others. It is not an ex- clusive right as in the case of the rental fee. Following are some examples: Archery Range Golf Course Ski Lift Bathing Pool Helicopter Tennis Court Boat Launch Miniature Train Toboggan Slide Dance Picnic Area Tractor Train Driving Range Pony Ride Fishing Pond Sightseeing Bus Salgg Rgvgnpgg All revenues obtained from the operation of refectories, stores, concessions, restaurants, etc., from the sale of mer- chandise or other property is included in this category. Un- conditional ownership of the item must pass from the seller to the buyer with each sale. Examples of this are as follows: Package food and dpink Foo an dr nk ervice Box Merchandise Banquets Candy Catering Cigarettes and Tobacco Dining Room Fruit Snack Bar Groceries Soda Fountain Gum Meat and Meat Products Papcorn and Potato Chips Soft Drinks Merchandise Archery Supplies Picnic Supplies Photo Supplies Tennis Supplies Souvenirs Golf Supplies Fishing Supplies Recreation Supplies License and Permit Fees For this classification the words license and permit have been considered synonymous. A license is a written acknowledgement of consent to do some lawful thing without command; it grants a liberty or privilege and professes to tolerate all legal actions. It is usually issued by a divi- sion of the government. A license ordinarily involves per- mission to perform an action. It seldom grants authority to occupy space or use prOperty. Camping Permit Fishing License Dumping Permit Hunting License Construction (Easement) Trailer License Special Servige Fees The charges made for supplying extraordinary articles, commodities, activities, or services as an accommodation to the public are considered special service fees. Such accom- modations must be unusual in character and not normally con- sidered a required governmental service. Examples are as follows: -26- Caddy camp Enrollment of group membership Enter or franchise of teams in competitive activity Materials for arts and crafts works Social actiVities Summer camp Recreation specialists-charges for personal services Instructors for organized classes: Archery Arts and Crafts Bait Casting Boating and canoeing Golf Skating Skiing Swimming and Diving Tennis Track and Field Enprgppp Fees Fees charged to enter a large park, botanical garden, zoological garden or other developed recreational area are considered entrance fees. These areas are usually well de- fined but not necessarily enclosed. The entrance fee is associated with the patron's first contact with the park. The park may contain additional facilities or activities for which fees are charged. Examples are: Botanical Garden Historic Site Wildlife Preserve Fish Preserve Park Zoological Garden Game Preserve Parkway Fair Grounds Entrance fees are required in thirteen states for park use. There may also be two more states included in this list, but they did not answer the survey prepared by the author and will not be included. An entrance fee will in- clude parking fees, vehicle entrance fee, and charges for park entrance per person. All these fees relate to the en- trance of a park, and will be grouped as such for ease of -27- discussion in this thesis. SURVEY A questionnaire was designed and distributed to state park agencies reporting a revenue from an entrance fee, as a portion of this thesis. The information derived from the questionnaire was significant in the formation of direct dis- cussions and indirectly as a basis for other discussions. The purpose of the questionnaire was to provide related information on the various states that have incorporated an entrance fee in their state park systems. Eight different points were answered in the questionnaire. They are as follows: 1) A determination of the exact number of states having an entrance fee and their location.22 2) The number of years each state has had an entrance fee. 3) The purposes for which the revenue derived from the entrance fee was used. 4) The types of state parks the entrance fee was col- lected in. 5) The amount of the entrance fee charged in each state. 6) The legislative appropriations for state park pur- -poses in each state. 22 California and Maryland did not answer the question- naire so they will not be included in this discussion. -28- 7) A determination of the effect of the entrance fee on legislative appropriations in each state. 8) -The gross and net returns from the entrance fee in each state. Pre tion of the uestionnaire The first step in the preparation of the questionnaire was to determine the questions that needed to be answered. These have already been listed. The next step was to deter- mine which states should reoeive the questionnaire. It was realized that not all fifty states had an entrance fee. As a result, the author used the 1961 edition of State Park Statistics.23 From this edition the states that had reported an income from an entrance fee were listed. The question- naire was sent only to these states. This deducted consid- erably from the mailing list, as all fifty states would have been contacted if this method had not been employed. The questionnaire and a cover letter were prepared and then sent to the various states on the prepared list. (Appendix) Two states did not answer. They were California and Maryland. The questions were very brief, requiring only short answers. It was hoped that the response would be larger by employing this technique. (See pages 87 and 88.) 23 National Park Service, State Park Statistics, (Washington 25, D.C., 1962). pp. 15-17. Regpltp The states which have entrance fees are listed below and also the corresponding number of years each state has had an entrance fee. (Table X) State Numb r of ear Connecticut 17 Florida 22 Indiana 43 Massachusetts 20 Minnesota 9 New Hampshire Not Stated New Jersey 27 New York 33 Rhode Island Not Stated Vermont Not Stated Virginia 26 Wisconsin 1 Michigan 2 Average = 20 years Mean = 21 years Purpose Fee was Used For The revenue derived from the entrance fee was used pri- marily for maintenance followed in order by administration, improvements, land acquisition and in two states the reven- ues were deposited in the state treasury. State Egg Connecticut Not Stated Florida 50% Maintenance & 50% Improvements Indiana 50% Administration & 50%.Maintenance Massachusetts! All fees go to general fund Minnesota 54% Maintenance, 23% Administration New Hampshire New Jersey & 23% Improvements Not Stated All fees go to general fund New York Land Acquisition Rhode Island Not Stated Vermont Not Stated Virginia Not Stated Wisconsin 50% Administration & 50% Maintenance -30- Areas Entrance Fee Collected In Generally the entrance fee was collected in all areas where it was considered feasible to enforce the fee and pro- duce a profit. State Connecti Florida Indiana Massachu cut setts Minnesota New Hamp New Jers New York Rhode Is Vermont Virginia shire BY land Wisconsin Collectio eas Wherever feasible All areas where feasible All parks All day use areas All areas over 50 acres Not Stated All parks where feasible All parks At one state beach Not Stated All parks State forest and recreation areas Charge for State Park Entrance Stpte Connecticut Florida Indiana ‘”Massachusetts Minnesota New Hampshire New Jersey New York Rhode Island Vermont Virginia Wisconsin Chppge Type 50¢ to $1. 00 vehicle entrance depends on area gggugaily, $2. 25 vehicle entrance Not stated per person 81 daily. 310 annual vehicle entrance 50¢ daily. 32 annual vehicle entrance 25¢ per person 25¢ and 25¢ per person and per car ¢ per car 50¢ daily and $5. 00 per person annual 25¢ per adult car for parking 30¢ per 50¢ daily, and 82. 00 vehicle entrance annual The revenue produced by the entrance fee did not seem to affect legislative appropriations for park purposes in most of the states questioned. This would be in keeping with the philosophy that the purpose of the entrance fee is to pro- duce additional revenues beyond the legislative appropriations. -31- The reason for the entrance fee is to produce additional revenues beyond legislative appropriations. If appropri- ations were producing enough revenue, additional revenue sources would not be required. Both New Jersey and Massachusetts reported that their ability to produce revenue and deposit this income in the general fund had some bearing on legislative appropriations. Legislative Appropriations and Entrance Fee Revenues State Gross szenue Net Revpnue Appropriations Connecticut $ 331,092.55 3 4,722,900.00 Florida 146,231.00 1,028,800.00 Indiana 494,775.10 Nothing Massachusetts 119,808.75 805,700.00 Minnesota 439,100.00 364,800.00 147,333.00 New Hampshire 6 New Jersey 3 791.00 New York 1,034i497.oo 13,5'—"'oo .000 .00 Rhode Island 34,865.56 968,467.00 Vermont Not stated Virginia 37,522.80 305,I35.00 Wisconsin Not stated w . 200,000.00 average = 300,187.08 average = 2,709,791.80 THE METHODS OF COLLECTING ENTRANCE FEES Charging for the use of developed recreational facilities is becoming more commonly accepted now than it was in the past. Reasons for charging have already been discussed in the pre- vious chapter. First, it has to be decided if a charge is feasible, necessary, and will be instituted in the park sys- tem. Second, the type of collection method has to be de- cided upon. The reason for charging an entrance fee is to bring in revenue for the park system. With this in mind, a system of -32- collection has to be developed that will keep costs to a minimum, and yet be acceptable to the public. There are many methods of collecting the entrance fee. To inventory the various methods that may be used, the United States Forest Service bulletin, Charging f0; Use of Natiopgl Forppp Reprpation Areas, will be used as a basis.24 There are two general classes of methods of collecting entrance fees: they are manual and mechanical. Manual Fee gollgction Manual methods of fee collection have been used in various park systems including local, state and national for several years. The usual method of collecting a fee by the manual method involves the stationing of a park attendant at the entrance to the park or recreation area, to collect the fee as the user passes and in return for the fee, he will issue a permit. In areas where there is more than one access road, vehicles without permits are stopped by the attendant, who then issues the required sticker. This method is cumbersome and should be avoided, if possible, by having only one en- trance road. According to the United States Forest Service study, the manual method of collection is quite expensive. 24United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Char in for U s o N io a1 F re t Re re- ation Apgas. 1951- -33- Pinecrest Campground, on the Stanislaus National Forest in California, was selected for a test. This campground is in a heavily used area and has 194 family camp units with a single entrance and exit. The campground had been fully re- habilitated before the 1961 season. Collections were started in April 25th and terminated October let. The user fee was set at one dollar per camp party. The entrance gate was manned for 1600 man hours by two attendants during the 156 day season. Each man worked an eight-hour day and a 40-hour week. Two men were necessary to provide up to a 12-hour day service, seven days a week. The attendants estimated they spent 50% of their time actually collecting, and the rest of the time answering questions or giving out information. 001- lection cost including the salaries of the attendants came to $3,489. Total use during this period amounted to 74,000 visitor days made up of 4,921 camper parties. The net fee collection after refunds was-filétfiflEL, Of-the.4,921_camp§;§,nnly180_re- ' “Mfgpgg,were’faquested. An old office building was moved into place to serve as housing for the attendants. The estimated cost of this build- ing was 32,000. M c l Metho s of F Col ec ion If charges are to be made for parks or recreational areas, they should be as low as possible without causing in- -34- convenience to the public. Mechanical methods of collection that are simple to operate and that are reasonably free of mechanical troubles have been used in an attempt to test their feasibility. Parking meters The Forest Service study found the type of parking meter, used by most cities, to have serious drawbacks and eliminated them from use at this time. The parking meters were found to be very costly to pur- chase and install when one such meter would have to be placed at every park site. The maintenance cost per unit is high and the useful life is short. Parking meters would have to be specially made and cali- brated with a 24-hour dial. As there are not any machines made with the requirements needed, a special machine would have to be developed. Also, the machine would have to be designed to take coins in a larger denomination than a ten- cent piece. Coin Operated Gates These may be designed to operate on coins or an im- pressed card for seasonal use. The automatic gate must be _able to keep a record of all cars entering and leaving the park, and to lock automatically and to reject coins during the time the area is full to capacity. Electricity is also necessary, so nearby power must be available. The Forest ServMI study showed the cost of operation, including the rental cost of the gate at 8100 per month, was approximately 14% of the gross revenue. -35.. Ticket Vending Machines There are many ticket vending devices on the market, but the one found most adaptable was a ticket vending machine adapted for the use of fifty-cent pieces. This could be quite easily adapted to Michigan where the charge is 50¢ for daily use. This would eliminate the sale of annual stickers at park entrances and they would have to be sold elsewhere. The user would put his coins in the machine and his ticket is dispensed which in turn would allow him to use the park. A problem is that a person may not have correct change and an attendant may have to be nearby to supply change. Ad anta es and D sa vanta es of Manua an Me h ca S tems Manual systems are very good from the standpoint of providing personnel who are readily available to give in- formation. An officer present gives the campers a feeling of security and his presence maintains order in the area. A current record may be kept of all park users, and good public relations can result from a well-trained, properly attired officer on duty. This system also has some disadvantages. It is the most costly system to operate. Some people resent seeing paid attendants with apparently nothing to do but collect their money. Also auditing records and receipts becomes time con- suming. Refunding becomes a problem whereas with a mechan- ical method the user has no Opportunity for refunds. Automatic gates are readily adaptable to day use areas such as beaches and picnic sites where the amount of "in and -35- out" traffic is at a minimum, but not so well adapted to camp sites where the user may want to enter or leave the park several times a day. Collection costs are quite low and the problem of refunding is not present. The attendants have a chance to do other work in addition to the collection job. The automatic gate system also has several disadvantages. One disadvantage of great importance is the unreliability of these electrically operated systems during a thunder storm. Some pe0ple attempt to enter without paying and occasionally the gates get damaged by two cars trying to enter on one charge. Ticket vending machines are the cheapest collection method according to the Forest Service study; less than 8% of the gross revenue was used for operation and cost of estab- lishment. This system has an advantage over the gate system of collection as no electricity is needed for operation. Therefore, it may be used in areas remote from power. Audit- ing of funds collected is simple through serial numbered tickets. Refunds, here again, are eliminated and the attend- ant is free to do other work. ‘This device also has bad points. Public relations must be carried on, so a person or officer is still employed to watch over the area, to answer questions and for law enforce- ment. The camper must have or obtain correct change;if staying overnight, must pay each day. CHAPTER IV THE ENTRANCE FEE IN THE MICHIGAN STATE PARE SYSTEM The attendance at Michigan State Parks has shown a rel- ative increase from 1956 to 1960. In 1961 after the entrance fee was instituted in the Michigan State Park System, atten- dance declined considerably. (Table VI Appendix) The total expenditures since 1956 have varied considerably and do not seem to relate to the increasing demand experienced from 1956 to 1960. (Table VIII Appendix) These figures show that there is little relationship between user demand and legis- lative appropriations for state park purposes. For a com- plete description of changes in attendance for each park, after the vehicle entrance fee had been installed see Table IX Appendix. Dahlg's Stugy Michigan's State Park System is becoming increasingly crowded. During the 1956 calendar year, when Thomas Dahle's study was conducted, more than 17,000,000 persons used Michigan's State Parks and Recreational Areas. Many more persons who sought to use these areas were turned away be- cause of a lack of facilities. It is also probable that many who wished to use the parks and recreation areas did not do so because of prior experience or knowledge of congested conditions. The need for some means of alleviating the many problems arising from expanded park use and of providing adequate rec- reational facilities for Michigan citizens, as well as out- -37- -38- of-state visitors, becomes more urgent each year. In an attempt to provided some basis for action, a sur- vey was conducted, under the sponsorship of the Parks and Recreation Division of the Michigan Department of Conser- vation and the Business Research Bureau of Michigan State University. Questionnaires were filled voluntarily by over 3,800 park users in 31 state parks. A portion of Dahle's study shows the following:25 Preferences on Financing of Park Expansions and Voluntary Respondents Choice of suggested method of payment 1. A daily charge . . . . . . . 39.5% 2. A season sticker . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5% 3. Both methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0% 77.5% Other answers 1. Opposes any fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4% 2. Raise camping fee. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4% 3. Parking Charge 0 C O O 0 O O O C C O . O .2% 4. Charge more for out-of-state-users . . . 1.0% 500ther8eueeeeeeeeeeeeee 02% 6. No answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0% Total 100.0% This survey also suggested that an annual charge if used, should be between $1.75 and $2.24, which was the median response. 25Thomas Dahle, Michiggp State Park Users Survey, (East Lansing, Michigan: College of Business and Public Relations, Michigan State University, 1956) page 12. -39- The feelings of the persons filling out the question- naire may be summarized as follows: 1. The charge must be such that no one is denied the use and enjoyment of the parks. 2. The charge should do more than bring in income to to support administration. The charge should be adequate to provide sufficient funds for improve- ment and expansion. Administration costs should be kept low. 3. Money derived from park fees should be used solely for park use. 4. Those who use the state parks should be willing to help support and improve them by means of a fee of some kind. 5. If a choice has to be made, a fee of some type would be more desirable than an increase in taxes. In 1961 a vehicle entrance fee was instituted in Michigan State Parks. The charge is two dollars for an annual permit and fifty cents for a daily permit. A s Ge ev nue Attempts were made to derive additional sources of rev- enue for capital develOpments in the Michigan State Park System before the adoption of the vehicle entrance fee. These attempts were as follows: 1. Request Appropriations The Division of Parks and Recreation of the Michigan Department of Conservation originally had requested from the State Legislature an appropri- ation of $30,000,000 for state park improvement and expansion. This appropriation was turned down by the Legislature. -40- 2. Request $30,000,000 Bond Issue As a second alternative the Division of Parks and Recreation asked for a $30,000,000 bond issue to be backed by the full faith and credit of the State. The State Legislature also rejected this re- quest. 3. Request of $10,000,000 Bond Issue As a third alternative to derive revenue the entrance fee was adopted by Michigan State Park System in 1961. The annual charge for vehicle en- trance was two dollars and the daily vehicle on- trance charge was fifty cents. The fee was insti- tuted as an alternative to gain additional sources of revenue to meet increasing demands on state parks and recreation areas. The revenue will be used for improvements and land acquisition. The bond issue was backed by revenues returned from the entrance fee. Public Act 149 of Michigan approved the bonding program in 1960. This was the first issue of its kind offered by the State. As of January 1963, 84,000,000 worth of bonds had been sold, of the original $10,000,000 proposal. On March 1, 1963 another $1,000,000 of bonds will be issued: this will be fol- lowed by another $3,500,000 issue if approved by the State Legislature. This would bring the total bond sales to 88,500,000. At the present rate of returns of revenues from the park entrance fee, these are all the bonds that may be -41- financed, unless revenues show an increase. The State Legislature has been considering the possi- bility of allowing bonds to be reissued as they are redeemed so as to allow $10,000,000 in bonds outstanding. To date, the maximum of the bonding program has been a total of $10,000,000 The removal of this limitation would be of little significance unless entrance fee revenues increase enough to finance more than the present 38,500,000 under consideration. In 1961 $108,000 was appropriated by the State Legis- lature to offset the costs of hiring additional personnel to administer and enforce the entrance fee. This was an appro- priation for initial incurred costs and will not be appro- priated annually as a line item, but rather in the general appropriation. To illustrate how the money derived from the entrance fee is handled, Section 14 from the legislation pertaining to the entrance fee will be quoted. (A) STATE PARK REVENUE BOND AND INTEREST REDEMPTION FUND The Fiscal Agent shall set aside.and transfer moneys from the Receiving Fund, as hereinafter provided, into a separate depositary account in a bank or trust com- pany to be selected by such Fiscal Agent designated STATE PARK REVENUE BOND AND INTEREST REDEMPTION FUND (hereinafter referred to as the "Redemption Fund") sums proportionately sufficient to provide for the pay- ment of the principal of and interest on the bonds pay- able therefrom as and when the same become due. During each Fiscal Year, all available revenues in the Receiving Fund shall be deposited monthly into me Redemption Fund until such time as there has been accu- mulated in such fund sufficient moneys to provide for payment of all principal of and interest on the bonds -42- (not capitalized) becoming due during the next suc- ceeding Fiscal Year until such time the Bond Reserve Account shall be sufficient to meet all remaining maturities. After meeting the foregoing requirements each Fis- cal Year all remaining available revenues in the Re- ceiving Fund, shall be deposited into the Redemption Fund monthly, or oftener, and set aside and held as a reserve for the payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds herein authorized, until such time as such reserve is equal to the maximum amount of principal of and interest on all bonds payable from State Park Rev- enues in any future twelve (12) month period. Such re- serve shall be carried on the books and records of the Fiscal A ent as the STATE PARK REVENUE BOND RESERVE ACCOUNT hereinafter referred to as the "Bond Reserve"), and the moneys in said Reserve Account shall be used . solely and only to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds payable from State Park Revenues for which current funds are not available or sufficient therefor. If any moneys from such Bond Reserve are used for such. purpose, such moneys shall be replaced from the first moneys in the Receiving Fund available therefor after providing for current requirements. Moneys in said Bond Reserve shall be finally applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds lastmaturing. (B) BOND CALL ACCOUNT Out of the revenues remaining in the Receiving Fund, after provision has been made for the current require- ments of the Redemption Fund, including the Bond Reserve, the Commission may, with the approval of the State Ad- ministrative Board of the State of Michigan, direct the Fiscal Agent to set aside in the Redemption Fund addi- tional moneys for the purpose of calling bonds for re- demption. Upon receipt of such direction and a reso- lution of the State Administrative Board approving such direction, the Fiscal Agent shall so set aside said moneys and carry them on his books and records as a BOND CALL ACCOUNT, to be used to call bonds for redemp- tion in accordance with such direction. (C) SURPLUS MONEYS Any moneys remaining in the Receiving Fund, after setting aside the amounts in the Redemption Fund (in- cluding the Bond Reserve and Bond Call Account (if any) as hereinbefore required shall be deemed to be surplus -43- moneys and to the extent said moneys are in excess of a constant balance of $100,000, shall be deposited quarterly by the Fiscal" Agent upon the order of the Commission in the State Treasury in a special fund to be designated STATE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND, and the moneys from time to time in such fund shall be used as required by law.25 Supplempptal Appropriations Through the Appropriations Act of 1961, as already men- tioned, $108,000 was voted on and set aside by the State Legislature for hiring 108 additional employees for admin- istering the entrance fee. In the future the $108,000 will not be a line appr0priation, but rather will be a part of the Conservation Department general fund appropriation. The costs of manufacturing and installing signs advertising the entrance fee at state parks and state recreation areas, the cost of the brochures explaining the entrance fee and the cost of printing park entrance permits were allotted through revenues obtained from the bond proceeds. The total ex- penditure was $15,000. Gate houses were established and built out of salvage materials by park employees, using funds appropriated for operation. It is difficult to estimate the true net profit from the entrance fee or overhead costs, as will be mentioned in the following paragraph. No money was set aside or appropriated for any additional transportation that might have been needed. 26Michigan Conservation Commission, State Park Revenue Bongg Serigp I, (Lansing, Michigan: MicEIgan Department of Oonservation,l96l) page 32. -44- Co 0 Colle tion Another point of significance is the lack of ability of the Parks and Recreation Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation to provide accurate figures on the cost of administering and enforcing the entrance fee. It is diffi- cult to construct time studies relating to the entrance fee, as collection attendants often have other jobs in addition to those pertaining to the entrance fee. For example, these employees may carry on public relations work by answering. questions, collecting garbage, doing maintenance work, col- lecting camping fees, policing park areas or a variety of other jobs in addition to the administration or enforcement of the entrance fee. Also, other undeterminable costs may arise such as the costs of sending notices to violators and serving warrants on violators if necessary. There is also the problem of liability to the state park agency that in- stalls an entrance fee. Also the costs of legal advice, architectural and con- sultant services, traffic studies, costs of printing and issuing bonds, interest on the bonds and other incidental costs have to be considered. The gross return derived from the vehicle entrance fee in Michigan for the 1961 season was $716,267. A net return was not calculated for the reasons previously mentioned. Sche u e Im rov m nts an A ition The revenue derived from the entrance fee is being used to pay the principal and interest of the bonding program by -45- the procedure previously mentioned. The money derived from the bond issues is being used in a variety of parks for land acquisition and development. The projects that are listed below are pr0posed beyond bonding revenues already spent. A. Proposed Land Acguisipion in Southeastern Michigan Reope- B. ation Areas. Area Brighton Recreation Area Island Lake Recreation Area Pontiac Lake Recreation Area Holly Lake Recreation Area Ortonville Recreation Area Rochester-Utica Recreation Area Bald Mountain Recreation Area Proud Lake Recreation Area Expanpion of Existing Parks. Park. Port Crescent P.J. Hoffmaster Cheboygan Fayette New Areas. Area Rifle River Alpena Grand Rapids Pictured Rocks Sherman Hill Saugatuck Sanilac Stevensville Acreage to __100unt W Livingston 1033 Livingston 490 Oakland 230 Iepeer-Oakland ) Lapeer-Oakland ) Oakland ) = 200 Oakland Oakland ) Total 1953 Cost $750,000 Acreage to 9.0mm We Ac 6 Huron purchase of up to 200 Ottowa-Muskegon - 192 Cheboygan 190 Delta purchase of up to _§99 Total purchase of up to 902 Cost $250,000 County Acpeage Ogemaw 4288 Alcona-Alpena purchase of up to 1443 A152: ( purchase of up to 120 St. Joseph purchase of up to 500 Allegan purchase of up to 300 Sanilac purchase of up to 500 Berrien purchase of up to 899 Total purchase of u to 7441 Cost P $500,000 -45- D. Blacktop Park Roads Site Cpuntz Cost Straits State Park Mackinac $ 4,400 Tahquamenan.Falls State Park Luce-Chippewa- 5,500 Van Riper State Park Marquette 33.000 Aloha State Park Cheboygan 16,500 Ludington State Park Mason 11,000 Wilderness State Park Emmet 5,500 Pinckney Recreation Area Washtenaw- Livingston 6,600 Port Crescent State Park Huron 6,600 Warren Dunes State Park Berrien 4,400 Waterloo Recreation Area Jackson- Washtenaw 6,600 Yankee Springs State Park Barry 5,590 Total Cost $105,600 E. New Construction Muskegon State Park Muskegon $82,500 Burt Lake State Park Cheboygan 236,700 Ft. Wilkens State Park Keweenaw 99.000 McLain State Park Houghton 14,850 Bald Mountain Recreation Area Macomb 412,500 Silver Lake State Park Oceana 66,000 Hayes State Park Ienawee- Washtenaw 46,750 Porcupine Mountains State Park Ontonagon 189,200 Higgins Lake State Park Roscommon 148,500 Mitchell State Park Wexford 90,200 Holland State Park Ottawa 44,000 Mears State Park Oceans 181,500 Fayette State Park Delta 24,750 Brimley State Park Chippewa 33.000 Tawas State Park Iosco 77,000 Sleeper State Park Huron 104,450 Cheboygan State Park Cheboygan 38,599 Total Cost $1,894,400 Grand Total - 3,500,000 The Michigan State Park System is composed of 62 state parks and recreation areas. These state parks and recre- ation areas provide beaches, camp areas, picnic areas, boat- ing facilities, hunting and fishing, scenic attractions and -47- other recreational opportunities. The number of these facil- ities included in the park system for which a fee will be charged are as follows: Beaches 45 Camp Areas 51 Picnic Areas 55 Boating Facilities 42 Scenic Attractions 11 Hunting and fishing are allowed in those areas where such use is feasible. Some of the better known scenic attrac- tions of the park system for which a fee will be charged are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 7. F91} Wilking Stgpp 25; . This facility is located in Keweenaw County and contains a restored fort which was built in 1844 for the protection of the miners. St P k. This facility located in Crawford County contains the largest stand of virgin white pine remaining in Michigan. W. This facility located in Oakland County affords great vistas of the sur- rounding country. In the area is located the former Edsel Ford Estate which is used for group meetings on conservation, education and allied topics. Lugipgton Stgtp Park. This facility is located in Mason County and contains superb facilities and in- teresting dune formations. Muske on State Park. This facility is located in Muskegon County and contains three miles of Lake Michigan beach and scenic views from the high dunes. Palms Book State Park. This facility located in Schoolcraft County contains Kitchitikipi Spring which is unique among the'state parksof Michigan. Two hundred feet across and forty feet deep the spring is fed by clearest water gushing from many fissures in the underlying limestone. Porcupine M0untains State ngk. This facility loca- ted in Ontonogan and Gogebic Counties is the larg- est state park, 55,000 acres and contains the en- chanting Lake of the Clouds, many trails, cabins for overnight shelter and winter sport ski facilities. -48- 8. Straits State ngk. This facility,1ocated in Mack- inac County affords beautiful views of the Mackinac Bridge which connects the upper and lower peninsulas. 9. Tahguamenon Falls State Park. This facility located in Luce and Chippewa Counties contains the largest waterfall located in the State of Michigan. 10. Warren Dunes State Papk. This facility is located Berrien County. Massive sand dunes known by name of Tower Hill, Pike's Peak and the Great Warren Dune rise from the shore to elevations high above the lake and slowly move by action of the winds. 11. Wilgerness State Park. This facility located in Emmet County has been left in its wild state, affords an excellent Opportunity to observe many of the wild animals such as deeré bear, ruffed grouse, porcupine, fox and many others. The present park facilities have been acquired and devel- oped principally by moneys derived from appropriations by the State Legislature. Also, properties have been obtained through gifts, tax divertailands and trades. Arthur 0. Elmer, Director of the Michigan Department of Conservation, has predicted that $135,000,000 will be needed in the next ten years for capital developments, in the Michigan State Park System, to meet increasing demands. The impact of private recreational developments could have a sig- nificant relationship on this figure and possibly lower it in the future. Farmers, land owners and private companies all have great potential in the development of future recreation- al areas, and feasibly could become increasingly important in the future develOpment of these areas. 27 Ibid. -49- Expenditures of phe First $5,000,000 of Bonds The first $5,000,000 of the bond program started with the sale of Series I bonds ($2,000,000) in August 1961 fol- lowed by the proposed sale of Series III bonds ($1,000,000) in March 1963. The status of the program as of December 31, 1962 is as follows:28 Lang Acquisition 1775 acres purchased 3 997,802 2 new areas and 14 additions-to existing parks Park Improvements 83 project construction contracts 1,770,393 39 projects completed in 26 parks Engineering and Administration costs 318,745 Bond Costs 155.550 Balance of PrOgram 2,600,900 Total $5,000,000 28 Ibid. CHAPTER V "PROS" AND "CONS" OF THE ENTRANCE FEE I. RATIONALE FOR THE ENTRANCE FEE Wirth-Lieber Theories Two theories have been proposed relating to the respon- sibility of park agencies to provide for the general welfare of the persons they serve.29 The first theory that will be considered was proposed by Colonel Richard Lieber, one-time director of the Indiana Department of Conservation. The second theory was proposed by Theodore Wirth, Director of the Minneapolis, Minnesota Park Department for 40 years. It was Colonel Lieber's belief that parks should not be totally paid for and Operated out of the State treasury. He felt that parks were desirable to have, but not a necessity. They should be created out of the public fund and amortized for bythe user. Charges should be made for special services demanded by individuals within a park that are not of a gen- eral park type facility, such as museums, nature trails, pic- nic areas, nature interpretation facilities, etc. These are not services but apparatus of a park. Colonel Lieber believed that parks were in themselves special services and as a re- sult should be paid for by an admittance fee. Theodore Wirth disagreed with Colonel Lieber and felt that parks were a necessity and were essential to the public 29S.G. Fontana, Financing Park Systems, a report to the Second Annual Great Lakes Park Training Institute, (Pokagon, Indiana; Pokagon State Park, 1948). -50- -51- welfare, health and orderly enjoyable life of the-community and the nation as a whole. He felt that every individual had a common interest and a common ownership in the park sys- tem and should take pride in its development and appearance. This common ownership was based on the fact that all the people were contributing to the establishment, operation, and upkeep of the park system. This may be through both direct and indirect taxation. As joint owners the citizens must share in the protection and support of the park system, as well as the benefits derived from the park. Wirth agreed with Colonel Lieber on the fact that it is justifiable to charge for special facilities that are pro- vided with the use of a limited number of patrons or special interest groups. The problem is to determine what facilities are desirable and essential, what facilities can be classi- fied as special use facilities and what constitutes a reason- able charge for their use. M t o s 0 F1 cin l. Capitgl Invgstmgnts. Benefits from capital investments are spread over a long period of time and it would also be plausible to spread the cost over a long period of time, such as by a bond issue. This furnishes funds immediately for land acquisitions and allows development to proceed at a normal rate. 2. Legislative Appropriations for Operation, Admin- istration and Maintenance. Legislative appropriations release funds on an annual basis and are appropriated from the revenue of any one year. -52- Appropriations are often irregular making long range plans difficult. Annual appropriations are not desirable for capital in- vestments. A steady income from appropriations cannot be planned on and the capital investment program will fluctuate from year to year. It would be very difficult to plan and carry out a logical, long range capital development program with an annual fluctuation in appropriations. Annual legislative appropriations are more suited to financing the costs of administration, operation and main- tenance. These costs are incurred on an annual basis and therefore should be appropriated on the same basis. In the Michigan State Park System, annual appropriations form the backbone of financing for operations, administration and maintenance. The park agency competes with all other state agencies for its share of the funds. Such appropri- ations will fluctuate with the condition of the State treas- ury and the anticipated revenue. A problem of importance is to increase appropriations for operation, administration and maintenance with an increase in capital developments and use. 3. Other Income. Operating revenue may also be obtained from other sources, such as fees and charges; severance taxes on the sale of timber and minerals, which is sometimes allotted for park purposes: miscellaneous taxes: fish and game license sales; gasoline taxes: money collected from law violations and others. These sources of income may reduce the legis- -53- 1ative appropriations correspondingly when they are held for use by the park agency and not deposited in the state treas- ury. Conpgmporgpy Thpories The author has assumed an approach that compromises be- tween the theories formed by Colonel Lieber and Theodore Wirth. A wider;-disperslm of age classes and a larger state pop- ulation has increased the demand for recreation and special recreational facilities. The early concept of state parks was to establish areas of outstanding state-wide scenery, or other sites of unique value such as historical, geological or archeolOgical areas. This concept was changed in recent decades and will probably continue to change with the desires of park users. With large population concentrations there is a demand to establish more park and recreation facilities in concen- trated areas or other strategic areas. Good examples are the parks in the highly populated areas surrounding Detroit or parks provided along highways with no special significance other than to accommodate overnight campers on trips or vaca- tions. The citizens of areas such as those around Detroit have a desire and need to relieve themselves of the daily routine and drudgery of urban life. They are demanding that more recreational facilities be established to meet their demand. The parks that are in demand by these people are not the unique, high standard State Park areas as originally -54- conceived by early park men; they are actually superfluous to their early concept. With a greater diversification of age classes, two pop- ulation segments are becoming relatively more important in Michigan's population structure. These two groups include children from babies to 14 year olds and senior citizens or retired folk over 65 years of age. These groups each demand a distinctively different type of recreation. The younger group demands active recreational outlets such as organized sports, swimming, bicycling, fishing, boating, water skiing and hiaking.3O The older group demands or desires other re- creational pursuits such as short nature walks, walking for pleasure, sightseeing, and to some extent, horseback riding.31 Parks of less than state caliber and special facilities are beyond the scope of the original state park philosophy. As time has progressed, demands have changed state park phi- losophies to the extent that some active type of recreational facilities such as swimming, picnioking, nature trails, camp- ing sites, golf courses, ball diamonds and other facilities have become commonly accepted as a park of a state park. At this point the author compromises between the theories established by Colonel Lieber and Theodore Wirth. Lieber suggests that state parks are not a necessity but are de- sirable to have. Wirth suggests that state parks are a ne- 30Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 99;- door Recreation for America, A report prepared by the Out- door Recreation Resources Review Commission, (Washington 25, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1962). PP. 36-37. 31 Ibid. -55- cessity. The author believes that state parks of historic, scenic or other state-wide significance are a necessity. They preserve outstanding areas of state-wide importance that should be held in trust for the benefit of future generations.‘ It must be kept in mind that state park areas of.a user oriented type are also important. They serve as outlets for recreational activities of a large number of the State's citizens. These parks are also necessary, but not usually of state-wide scenic, historic or geologic significance. Areas of less than state-wide significance are desirable to have, but beyond the scope of the state to provide from the general tax revenues. If park users demand this type of facility they should be willing to help finance the capital developments of these areas by an entrance fee or special tax. Once areas, such as these, have been established the author believes it will then become the responsibility of the state to operate, administer and maintain these state parks through revenue derived from the state treasury. Park areas of less than state-wide significance could be developed by private enterprise, or local levels of the government such as county, township, city or metropolitan governments, or by the state if the development is financed out of entrance fees or special taxes. A logical question may arise from such a viewpoint. It is, "To what extent should parks of state-wide significance be developed?" These parks are valuable because of the -55- natural values they preserve. A conflict can arise between an integrating of facilities that do not blend into the use and character of a park area of state-wide significance. In many of the state parks that fell in the category of state- wide interest, facilities such as golf courses, swimming ares, ball diamonds, ski lifts, and others have been developed. The author has extracted a statement made by Frank Brockman to help illustrate and guide the extent of develop- ment in resource-based parks. Wild lands offer excellent opportunities for health-giving outdoor leisure-time pursuits. In addition they provide opportunity for development of physical and mental skills. To a large extent the individual engaged in a recreational activity on wild land is on his own: his enjoyment is largely dependent on his resources. In a limited sense he must meet the physical demands of the out-of-doors, and the degree of success he obtains is an indication of his self-reliance. Intellectually, too, his enjoyment of such areas depends on his perception; in some cases the major recreational benefits can be achieved only from a combination of physical and intel- lectual abilities.32 If the state provides the minimum facilities to help develop the physical and intellectual skills of the users, they have fulfilled their responsibility of preserving areas of special interest from overdevelopment. Developments should be kept to a minimum. The park should be safe for the use of the public and should not have features that would make it unsafe for such use. If such un- desirable features do occur they should be eliminated or 32arena 0. Brockman, Recre 10 a1 Us r Wi L s, (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), page 23. -57- warned against. The state park should be accessible for public use. A minimum amount of developments will insure the protection of the scenic or other significant values the park was established for, and will insure a non-urban atmosphere. The author agrees with Mr. Wirth that state parks are in the joint ownership of the general public and the citizens must share in the support and protection of the park system, as well as the benefits derived from the parks. If special services are provided they should be paid for by the users of the facilities. The author disagrees with Colonel Lieber on the point that all state parks should be created out of the general fund, and operation, administration and maintenance should be paid for by the user. The only parks that should be esta- blished out of the general fund are state parks of state- wide interest, such as already described. Parks of less than state-wide significance that serve areas of population con- centration should be paid for by other means, such as an en- trance fee or special tax. The author feels that all state parks, once established, become the responsibility of the state to operate, administer and maintain. In parks of state-wide significance such as resource oriented, or some of the intermediate type of parks, the the state has the responsibility of providing for the general welfare. These parks should be developed to the extent that they are accessible and safe for public use. All thepopu- lation segments should be provided for as long as these de- ~58- velopments are of a non-urban type, and blend into the use and type of recreational area involved. Facilities beyond those that are necessary for providing for the general welfare and that do not blend into the scenery and use of the area involved, should be established in user oriented state parks; developed through entrance fees or special taxes. These also could be developed by private enterprise if the demand was strong enough. Future directions of outdoor recreation may be guided by ideas of other men which follows: 1. Dr. N.P. Neilson, professor of health, physical education, and recreation at the University of Utah stated, "Recreation at public expense will decrease. Services such as schools, roads and water supplies must be tax supported. Competition for the tax dollar will gradually force the establishment of fees for participation in many recreational activ- ities now provided under community auspices."33 2. Professor Lyle E. Grains of the Department of Con- servation at the University of Michigan states, "It is important that we question any proposal that places all costs of meeting expanding needs for recreation on the taxpayer." Craine further states, 33 "Future Directions of Recreation”, Journg1 of Heglth: Physical Education-Recrgation, January 1963. -59- "If the space and facilities we need in the future are to be obtained, some greater cost sharing is in the cards."34 3. Professor Louis F. Twardzik, Department of Resource Development at Michigan State University, advocates a different viewpoint than either Neilson or Craine. Twardzik suggests that recreation is a social-welfare function of the government with the prime purpose of "service to the people". He states, "The gradual loss of recreation's stature as a social-welfare function of the government is attested to by the many cost-sharing or pay-as-you-go plans for fi- nancing recreation currently being advocated."35 4. It is important in any consideration of the question of fees and charges to keep in mind the fact that public recreation is not a business or public util- ity. It is a public service to meet one of the basic human needs of our day. The value of a recre- ation program.lies in its service to the people, not in the income producing ability. The income of public park and recreation departments has for many years been about 15% of their total income. It has never exceeded 20%.36 34Lyle E. Craine, Proviging Spacp f0; Miphigan's Recre- ation Needs, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Michigan Forestry and Park Association, Feb. 9, 1962, p.7 & 8. 5Louis F. Twardzik, Service to Peoplp-A New Perspective to R creation, Speech presented to the Missouri Park and Recre- ation Assn., (De t. of Resource Development, Michigan State Univergity, 1962 , page 2. 3 National Recreation Association,"A Brief Statement on Fees and Charges in Community Recreation", (N.R.A., New York 11, N.Y., August 1957). Page 1 -50- Texas Stugy Another approach may be taken to substantiate the rationale in favor of an entrance fee or other financing for state parks, above and beyond that derived from the general fund through taxation. A study made at the Texas Techno- logical College will be used as a basis for this discussion.37 In all state parks, in the United States, a total of $87,372,621 was spent for operation, administration, main- tenance, and capital developments. If this total is pro- rated among the number of visits the cost per visitor amounts to thirty-four cents. This amount includes twenty-two cents for operation, administration and maintenance and twelve cents for capital investments. The net cost per visitor for operation and maintenance is thirteen cents if net revenues from operation are subtracted. These amounts are similar to those of the past several years. (State Park Statistics) Complete reliance cannot be placed upon the validity of conclusions obtained from an analysis of these reports due to shaky attendance figures, non-uniformity of reporting in- come and differences in interpretation of maintenance and operation costs. With these flaws the cost per visitor is still one of the more reliable and constant ones. Even though this figure varies from nothing to several that are 37Texas Technological College, "Texas State Parks", (Unpublished Report, Division of Park Administration, Texas Technological College), Lubbock, Texas. in the twenty-five cent and thirty-cent bracket, a number of reputedly well-run systems are below ten cents per capita per attendant and twelve cents for capital developments. Cost Per Visitor in Michigan Spats Parks Michigan has twenty-three acres of park land in the state park system per 1000 population. Most of this land is in large tracts in the northern part of the state. In Michigan 97% of the state park use is spent in daytime activities. In 1960 no land acquisition was carried on and $900,000 was spent on capital improvements; the cost per visitor was 38 It would not be unreasonable to assume nineteen cents. that Michigan could request extra revenue above and beyond that derived from general taxation to meet the difference of seven cents per capita per annum. This would assume that all cost incurred above twelve cents per capita per annum should be paid for by user or by other means. The twelve cents per capita per annum was the cost mentioned in the preceding section. Michigan needs more than nineteen cents per capita per annum. Arthur 0. Elmer, Chief of the Parks and Recreation Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation, has pre- dicted that in order to provide adequately for the estimated state park use in 1970, $55,000,000 would have to be spent for land acquisition and $80,000,000 would have to be spent for capital improvements.39 38Information obtained based on figures from the Parks and Recreation Division of the Michigan Department of Conser- vatiogé National Conference of State and Federal Inter-Agency Committee for Recreation, Pro eedin s of the Tenth Annual Mapping, (Roscommon, Mich., July 22-25, 1962), pp. 10-13. -62- In 1961, $716,267 was collected as gross income from the state park entrance fee in Michigan. To offset the costs of collection, $108,000 was appropriated for this purpose or approximately 14% of the revenues collected from the entrance fee, plus other costs already mentioned. Charles Harris, director of Field Operations for the Division of Parks and Recreation of the Michigan Conservation Department, estimated 25% to 30% would be a more accurate figure for the costs of collection. Assuming that even the $716,267 was all net profit col- lected from the entrance fee, it would take over 180 years to collect the $135,000,000 needed by 1970 to meet the increasing demands on Michigan's State Park system. This justifies some other means of obtaining revenue beyond the annual legislative appropriations for capital de- velopments. It has been found in the past that legislative appro- priations are not steady and vary from year to year. This fluctuation of the annual appropriations makes it difficult to make long range plans for development. To further illustrate, the Lansing State qurnal ob- served:40 Michigan's recreational programs for the coming fiscal year have been watered down because of inadequate “State Joggnal, (Lansing, Michigan) July 1, 1962, Section , page . -53- appropriations from the legislature. Gaylord Walker, Deputy Conservation Director, said, "The money increase of $160,000 over last year is a token increase and won't even enable the department to maintain programs at the present level." In Sag Shape "This won't even take care of the increased cost of materials and certain fringe benefits", Walker said, pointing out the civil service health and acci- dent insurance provisions have become more costly. "We will have to water down previous programs planned for new parks, to say nothing of the potential increase in the use of parks this year,” Walker said. "Not only do we expect increased usage of parks, but under the bonding program we have already created additional park facilities as well as purchase of new land which should be put under administration this year", he said, "This costs money but we won't be able to . control or man them this year as we should. We will do the best with what we have, but I wouldn't be surprised if we get criticism from park users." The legislatures appropriation was almost $1,500,000 under the department request. The lawmakers, in addi- tion, reduced funds from the previous year allocations in several areas for land acquisition, road and bridge maintenance, and enforcement. More revenue for capital developments is needed. To meet this demand the entrance fee has been introduced, but isn't producing enough revenue to meet the need. In Michigan an annual vehicle entrance permit costs two dollars and a daily permit costs fifty cents. It could be considered feasible to eliminate the annual permit, or raise its cost, as the daily permit would be a higher revenue producer. Com- paring this fee with twelve other states that have entrance or admittance fees, it is found, six of these states do not have annual permits, also in some cases the daily permits are higher. Comparisons are as follows: STATE Michigan Connecticut Florida Indiana Massachusetts Minnesota New Hampshire New Jersey New York Vermont Virginia Wisconsin Rhode Island Note: ANNUAL PERMIT 3 2.00 none 3 2.25 none $10.00 $ 2.00 none none none none es 2.00 8 5.00 DAILY PERMIT .50 050-075 .50 yes $1.00 .50 .25 .25/ erson .25 car .50 .25 .30 .50 $1.00 TYPE OF CHARGE Vehicle Entrance Parking Fee Vehicle Entrance Admittance Vehicle Entrance Vehicle Entrance Admittance Fee Vehicle Entrance Admittance Vehicle Entrance Admittance Parking Vehicle Entrance Vehicle Entrance In this case the admittance fee refers to a charge per person for entering a state park and follows the classification in Chapter III. Six states do not have an annual entrance fee of any type. Of the states that do have an annual fee, three are higher than Michigan's two dollar fee. Table VIII in the appendix shows that expenditures on land and capital developments have not increasedwwith the demand . The year 1957 had the highest allotment.Fbr capital developments in Michigan State Park history, $1,419,219 was spent. In 1959 only $61,268 was spent on capital develop- ments and in 1960 $17,741 was spent. This again illustrates the erratic dependability of legislative appropriations for capital developments, and the impossibility of developing workable, long range plans to meet increasing demands through such appropriations. From the 1962 edition of State Park Statistics a com- parison of the annual per visitor cost of expenditures has been developed by the author for several states having an -55- entrance fee. This was based on the total annual attendance and total annual expenditures in each of the state park systems being compared. The chart is as follows: STATE EXPENDITURES AIIENDANCE PER !;§ITOR 908T Connecticut '8 903,750 4,788,548 .19 Delaware 91,028 191,800 .47 Florida 1,629,934 3,647,462 .45 Indiana 1,581,769 2,965,865 .40 fl;9 ~Massachusettsvx~—iv346‘5U6‘vv’”1‘2777711---__,-95-a (5' Minnesota 1,121,876 3,195,876 .35 New Jersey 739,031 4,686,975 .16 New York 19,299.021-»_—311992,946- r60‘ Rhodeisl‘an‘d " 1,052,281 3,005,938 .35 Virginia 404,562 1,112,269 .36 Wisconsin 715,436 5,519,761 .13 MICHIGAN «u~—-21559,633 13,3851922—\\\\ .19 --- Michigan's cost per visitor is somewhat below that of the other states in the above comparison. Connecticut has the same per visitor cost as Michigan, New Jersey is three cents lower and Wisconsin is six cents lower. The other states in the comparison range to ninety-five cents per visi- tor in Massachusetts. If per visitor costs are compared it could seem feasible to raise Michigan's per visitor cost and obtain additional sources of revenue. If legislative appropriations are not high enough to develop park areas of less than state-wide significance, they will have to be developed by other sources of revenue. If the appropriations continue as they have in the past pos- sibly the revenue derived from the entrance fee will not even be sufficient to meet the demand. E onomic P f ts 0 Parks Limited amounts of funds available for expenditures on -55- capital developments make it very difficult to plan for future expansion and development of state parks and recre- ational areas. Park areas of state caliber are known to bring addi- tional revenue into the surrounding communities. Money is introduced into the area by daytime park users and over- night park users, from both state resident park users and out-of-state visitors to Michigan State Parks. These funds not only bring additional money to the surrounding areas of the state park or recreation area, but benefit the total economy of the state. It has been stated in this thesis that revenue derived from the entrance fee be used to finance capital developments and not for maintenance, operation, or administration. Charging a small entrance fee, that does not discriminate against any segment of park users, can provide the needed revenue for developments. A fee that is considered discriminatory in one state may not be considered so in a different state or area. In Michigan a two dollar annual entrance fee was considered acceptable and not discriminatory by the majority of state park users interviewed by Thomas Dahle. The state park de- velopment financed by both state residents and out-of—state tourists will benefit the state. If a community can attract a couple dozen tourists a day throughout the year, it would be conomically comparable -67.. to acquiring a new manufacturing industry with an annual pay- roll of $100,000.41 Wisconsin made a study in 1961 of the amount of money spent by overnight campers. Interviews were made of 17,152 car parties in state parks and state forests in the southern part of the state. The results of these interviews showed that the average overnight camping party of family spent sixteen dollars and thirty-eight cents in the surrounding community.42 The Michigan Highway Department, in 1961, also conducted a survey of the amount of money spent by the average camping family and surveyed 1,235 ears in the study. The average amount spent per party per day was sixteen dollars and ninety- four cents. A figure that has been suggested for Michigan in oral discussions has been ten dollars per party per day for over- night campers and one dollar per party per day for daytime users, such as picnickers, swimmers, and other participants of day use facilities. This has been argued as being con- servative.43 To further illustrate expenditures by park users another examples will be illustrated from a 1956 survey in Michigan.44 41United States Department of Commerce, The Tourist Business, (Washington 25, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1957). +2Wisconsin Conservation Department, Technical Bulletin 22, (Madison, Wisconsin: 1961). Interview with Paul Barrett, Consultant to Michigan Deparzfent of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan. Thomas Dahle, Michigan State Park Users Survey, (East Lansing, Michigan: College of Business and Public Relations, Michigan State University, 1956), page 15. Daily Expenses of Park Users Based Upon Family Ugit Expenditure Campers Day Users Total Per Cent Dollars e0021g&9_,__~\‘~_I§\V“~y__u—g 9 1.4 10 50-2099 " '*---—u a gfl2l __. _ 304 3.00-4.49 34 12 46" 7.4 6.00—1149 58 11 69 11.1 7 - 50"9 0 49X .- A 765_,,l-——-~«---————~9 85 13 o 7 9. 50-11.49“1_H1w—>-\1\]:9~d_’_m " 14 133 2104 11.50-13.49 37 13 50 8.1 12.38-i5.99 - 42 6 2? 7.g . over . Subtotal 3% 33% 651' 100 .0 Don't know 62 115 183 12.; Not on vacation 1 . TOTAL 839' 1133 8% The average (arithmetic mean) daily expenditures of the entire group that made estimates of their expenses was $9.20. The average for campers was $9.24, only slightly higher than the $9.05 average for day users. The estimates include food purchased for vacation, transportation costs, entertainment, souvenirs, park camping and electric fees, lodging (day users), meals other than con- sumed in the park and sightseeing costs. No matter how these figures might be interpreted, it is apparent that park users spend a considerable sum of money in various parts of Michigan. Furthermore, these expenditures are well distributed throughout the state, rather than con- centrated in areas where parks are located. The significance of the various figures may be questioned and the reliability of the surveys questioned, but the.author only wants to suggest the economic impact of state parks to -59- the state. Whether all this money remains in Michigan and what the net profits are must also be considered. These figures show the amount of revenue that can be produced for the surrounding community by the park visitor. One important point is that revenue may be introduced from outside of the state, through the use of the park en- 'trance fee for capital developments, with the capital spent by the park user in the encircling community, adding to the benefit of the state as well as certain citizens. The citizens of the state share a common ownership in their parks. Through their support they can take pride in their parks. Through their support they can take pride in a better park system and a more prosperous community and state. Encourage Private Development Instituting an entrance fee in the state parks is an en- couragement to private enterprise. With the state charging an entrance fee private development can come into competition with the state. Without an entrance fee the development of private campgrounds would be discourage as they could not compete with a camping fee of one dollar a night, which is charged in Michigan State Parks for camping. An entrance fee will encourage private development, thus relaxing the demand on state park facilities to some extent. Engourage Coppty and Township Pgrks County and township governments could also adapt some type of fee to help develop local parks to alleviate the de- man on state parks. This has been recently considered and investigated in Michigan. Following is a newspaper article from the Lansing State Journal, Wednesday, August 22, 1962.45 A legislative committee prepared to hear sug- gestions at Grand Haven, Wednesday, on state park needs and use of public lands in a series of public hearings opened at Holland. About 50 persons last night appeared before the committee headed by Rep. Reimer Van Til (R.-Holland). Suggestions from the audience sought a limit on of campers in state parks, urged county or township governments to establish public parks--possibly with matching Federal funds-~and proposed that parking meters be installed in beach parking lots. Charles Harris, state parks department spokesman, doubted that the P.J. Hoffmaster park being established on the Ottawa-Muskegon county line would take the pressure from Holland state park. He said the rate of use of parks increases faster than new facilities can be provided. Lou Haney, manager of Holland state park, said attendance there was up 30,000 over last year. Following the afternoon session Grand Haven, the committee moves to Ludington for an evening hearing. II. RATIONALE AGAINST THE ENTRANCE FEE Puplip Accgptance The state park vehicle entrance fee was established in 1961 in the State of Michigan. The fee was not generally accepted by park users. Attendance to Michigan State Parks in 1960 had been 15,933,935 persons. After the installation 45"The State Journal", A1; Stgte ngk Needs, Wed., Aug. 22, 1962, Lansing, Michigan; Sect on 0, page 6. -71- of the entrance fee in 1961 attendance figures dropped to 13,385,922 persons. Part of this dr0p in attendance may have been to an unusually "wet" summer. It is hard to inter- pret whether all these persons sayed away from the state parks in resistance to the entrance fee. The Parks and Recre- ation Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation has a list of the drops in attendance per park that has been listed in the Appendix. This was used as a basis for esti- mating resistance, but as was already mentioned this is not a true measure as other factors may have attributed to the drop in attendance. The state may be accused of shunning its responsibility to provide for the general health and welfare of its citizens by instituting a fee that initiated a drop in attendance. Costs and Benefits Entrance fees are not desirable if they do not produce a profit. An entrance fee should not be charged unless it produces a sufficient amount of revenue to be useful. To be considered useful the benefits should exceed the costs. Enough money should be produced to meet the demands of addi- tional revenue needed for capital developments, operation, administration or maintenance, depending on the particular state. The net revenue, the fee or other source of revenue produces, is important. If a state needs $1,000,000 and is depending on revenue derived from the entrance fee or another source, it should come close to producing this amount. -72- 0f the states reporting they had an entrance fee, Minnesota was the only state to give a gross and net value of revenues. Minnesota's gross income from the entrance fee was $147,333 and the estimated net income was $69,800. From these figures it can be seen that the net revenue was only 47% of the total revenue collected. Michigan estimated their net return from the entrance fee as approximately 70% of the gross return collected from the fee. Other states that reported having an entrance fee were unable to determine the net returns from the fee.. There are many costs involved with an entrance fee. These costs are for enforcement personnel, collection stations, administration, permits, depreciation of collection equipment and good will or public relations, etc. If these costs ex- ceed the benefits derived from the entrance fee, it should be eliminated. General Welfare Instituting an entrance fee in a park could be the start to a gradual loss of the social welfare function of the government. In the past, especially on the local level, recreational areas have been supplied free of charge for the use of all persons desiring to participate in the recreational oppor- tunities that are available. Although the Federal government and many state govern- -73- ments have established and maintained public parks since the middle of the last century, these have often been sup- ported with an interest of preserving unique areas, and have often been financed by private donations. Consequently, it was not until post-World War II that either Federal or state government were looked to as having any responsibility for providing space to meet an expressed recreation need.46 Before this period federal agencies were very much con- cerned with providing or finding ways to provide for recre- ation, but did not feel the full force of the demand until the post-war period. It may be interpreted that the Federal and state govern- ments did not feel a need or responsibility to provide recre- ation space until the demand was developed enough to force state action to be taken to meet the outdoor recreational demands. Responsibility was felt by the state park agency to develop a number of areas to attempt to meet the demand, and not leave this reaponsibility of service to the people to be entirely exploited by private enterprise. Today, this demand has expanded even to a greater extent than in immediate post-war years, but the develOpment of parks has not expanded as rapidly to meet the increased needs. 46Lyle E. Craine, Proviging Spacg for Michiggp'g Recre- ational Needs, Speech presented at the Annual Conference of the Michigan Forestry and Park Association, (De t. of Con- servation, University of Michigan, Feb. 9, 1962 , page 6. 174- To provide parks and recreational areas to meet the in- creasing demand is in public interest and in the scope of providing service to the pe0p1e. When a charge or entrance fee is initiated in these areas it could suggest a reverse in the past park philosophy of service to the people. If attendance drops in state parks because of a charge for en- trance or if the ”money-making" idea becomes the first in- terest of the state park agency, this could gradually de- teriorate the park system and service concept. It must also be stated here that a fee for entrance could also produce a profit for expansion of the park system and more improve- ments, if the philosophy of service to the people is kept prominent. Parks and recreational areas were originally established from funds derived from the state treasury through taxes, from tax reverted lands, from gifts and through trading parcels of land. Citizens of Michigan have helped pay for the development of state parks and recreational areas through taxes and then suddenly, in 1961, are asked to pay a vehicle entrance fee to gain admittance to their own parks. The meaning of recreation as a public benefit and re- sponsibility is being challenged, partially because of an affluent society.“7 It is now proposed that since the citi- zens of Michigan are now in a better position to pay for 47Louis F. Twardzik, Service to People--A New Perspectivp To Recreation, Speech presented to the Missouri Park and Re- creation Association, (Dept. of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1962), Page 3. -75- recreation, it should lose its public welfare stature. Park entrance could be on a free basis as it was in the past and charges for special facilities and services could be Justified. A user should not be hindered from his right to enter a public park, by. a mandatory entrance charge. Time and distance often constitute substantial charges to park users without adding more charges. There are many benefits of recreation that are intangible and necessary to a healthy normal life. These benefits should not have a price put on their services to the community state and nation. Parks and recreation areas provide health- ful exercise necessary for physical fitness, promotes mental health and relaxation, offers spiritual values and valuable educational opportunities. Is it in the best interest of the State to place a value on these benefits? The entrance fee has been instituted to produce revenue. Additional revenue is the prime justification for such a fee and could quite easily become a deteriorating force on the present pattern of state park resources. The higher amount of users that can be accommodated in a park may be encouraged to produce a higher resulting revenue,which should never be- come the primary goal of the department. .Preservation of the natural resources of these areas should be of utmost im- portance by preventing over-excessive use, and never the amount of revenue that can be returned. Liability. In past years it has been considered that the state -76.. could do no wrong and, therefore, should not be sued. This immunity idea originated in England centuries ago. It was the theory in that time that the King could do no wrong. English courts dropped this idea, but the idea is still prevalent in American courts. The idea of immunity has taken a different aspect re- cently. This clearly is expressed in a newspaper article which is as follows:48 Michigan's Supreme Court officially Friday de- cided that the State can do wrong and the decision is going to have some far-reaching effects. Because of the ruling, there probably will be: More suits against cities, villages, counties, town- ships and the State when people are hurt physically and financially through government employees' negli- gence. More work for lawyers. More business for in- surance companies. A fairer shake for the individual. Some cities without much money might even go bank- rupt if they come out on the wrong end of a huge damage suit. There may be some notion by the Legislature to "refine" or limit the court decision. Pe0p1e who should know say most lawyers favor the high-court ruling. Five of the eight justices ruled that they won't recognize governmental immunity as a defense in damage suite. The ruling came in the case of a Detroit man killed in 1954 at the old Morgan Building being razed to make way for the Civic Center. However, one justice, while he agreed with abolish- ing immunity, couldn't go along in this specific case be- cause cities now will have no protection. 48Written by Dale Arnold - source unknown. -77- They've relied on immunity to keep them safe and if the door were opened on all past cases, courts would be flooded and maybe some city treasuries emptied by lawsuits. But the court has now warned that in the future, it won't go along with the immunity idea so cities had better get insurance. This isn't shocking to a lot of people, however. "The whole trend in recent years has been to limit immunity more and more", said University of Michigan law professor, Paul Kauper. The immunity idea originated in England centuries ago with the theory that the King could do not wrong. But paradoxically English courts rejected the idea long ago while United States courts clung to it. Michigan is the fourth state to do away with the immunity protection through the courts. Florida did it that way in 1958, Kauper said with Illinois following. New York did it through its legislature. It is the how-to-do-it problem that split the Michigan Supreme Court. Five justices opposing immunity feel immunity was originally court-created, so the court should do away with it. The conservative view followed by the three Re- publican members of the court is that the court should follow previous fulings, and if any change is to come, it should come through the legislature. It will take a long time and many court cases to fully evaluate the decision. It doesn't mean that everybody suing the city or county will win. The plaintiff still has to prove his case, but he isn't starting with two strikes against him a: he did when the governments had immunity on their 8 d3. One judge said that the "umpire has called the play and I have to go along".. He added that his col- leagues probably would do the same. ~78- Some news articles indicated that Detroit, defendant in the case on which the Supreme Court made its big decision might appeal. But there is no place to go. "This is a matter of State law completely", Prof. Kauper said. "There is no basis for an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. There is no Federal ques- tion here". Sam Trina, now in the Wayne County Prosecutor's office, but formerly solicitor generel of Michigan, thinks the lawmakers may get into the picture. The legislature might limit municipalities liability or reverse the court he said. But it is doubtful that the Legislature would get far with a reversal. It would have to clear Gov. Swainson, and chances of that are slight. One observer thought the high court was just "building a fire under the Legislature", trying to get it to act on immunity. - The legislature had a bill before it last session to cut into immunity protection, but it got nowhere. A similar measure is expected to come up again next session. Rep. Thomas Whinary (R., Grand Rapids), head of the House Judiciary Committee, thought the immunity doctrine should have been discarded, but perhaps more slowly. "This is a big jolt to the State", he said, "It might have been more desirable for a gradual transition." Wayne County Circuit Judge Victor J. Baum, who handled the Detroit case which started all this furor, boiled the question down to its essentials. "Basically, it is a question of how the loss should be borne when government negligence is involved," he said. "Should it be distributed or shouldered by the individual?" Baum didn't care to say whether he was happy or not about the Supreme Court ruling, but the odds are he is glad. A few years ago he allowed damages when a Livonia youngster was injured on a school playground. The school had insurance, so Judge Baum decided the public coffers wouldn't be harmed if the boy col- lected damages. He also decided that the king - or school in that case - could do wrong. Test in Court of Claims The question of immunity of the State Park Commission of Michigan may become more questionable with the institution of the state park fee, making the State Park Commission a proprietary agency. Since the institution of the park entrance fee, there haven't been any cases in Michigan to test the immunity of the State Park Commission. A case occurred in 1959, before an entrance fee had been initiated in Michigan State Parks, that definitely may have bearing on future cases. A short summary of this case follows:49 On September 8, 1959. David Kuhary aged nine and one- half years, was injured in a bathhouse at Muskegon State Park. The case was brought before the State of Michigan Court of Claims to recover damages for past pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement and mental anguish; and for future pain, suffering, mental anguish and disability of the injured boy. The defense argued: 1) That the court should declare that the defendant (Michigan State Park Commission) is not liable by 49State of Michigan Court of Claims, "Dorothy Kuhary, vs Michigan State Park Commission, No. 594", Arthur M. Bach Circuit Judge, (Assistant Attorney Generalis Office, Lansing, Michigan.) -80.. virtue of sovereign immunity and that maintenance and operation of parks is a government function. 2) That no propriety function was involved in operation of the Muskegon State Park by the State of Michigan. 3) That if the court should find that operation of the park at Muskegon was a proprietary function and that the State of Michigan is not immune from liability that it should further find that there was no negli- gence on the part of the defendant and that David Kuhary was guilty of contributory negligence. The State was_n9t held responsible on the grounds of m contributory negligence, but the question of Michigan's immunity and the propriwjunW tioned”§v§n‘beferaathe‘igstallation of the entrance fee. The author was unable to find any precedents that may have been established in other states regarding immunity and the pro- prietary function. All information gathered seems to suggest that the entrance fee will lessen the immunity of the State Park Commission. Special Taxgs ang Funds The entrance fee is not producing enough revenue to meet the demands predicted by the Conservation Department. A higher fee would totally defeat one of the major objectives of the State Park system which is service to the people. Higher fees would tend to eliminate and discriminate against segments of park users in lower income groups. Parks of State caliber would become areas of recreation for persons in the higher income brackets. It might be feasible, as previously indicated, to have only a daily charge and eliminate the annual fee totally, -81- but this also raises the cost per visitor. A better answer would be to find other sources of revenue that would finance the development of the park system to serve areas that demand user oriented facilities, and still provide free entrance. Bond issues financed by special taxes, such as the cigarette tax of Wisconsin that is financing a $50,000,000 bond issue for land acquisition, would be an alternative. The question may arise, "Is it equitable to charge a cigar- ette smoker for park revenues?" Inelastic taxes are good revenue producing sources and have been used to produce money for many purposes. If a park agency has an opportunity to use these funds, instead of another agency, it would appear feasible to do so. Funds set aside from the sale of driver's licenses as is done in Washington or Oregon, or other such earmarked funds, might also be considered as another alternative. Two states have financed developments with oil royalties. Methods such as these produce higher revenues, generally speaking, than does the entrance fee. These taxes have often been used in the past to derive revenues for other purposes, such as highway construction and others. Items with an in- elastic demand such as these produce relatively stable and high revenues. Arguments may be projected for and against taxing these items for park purposes. The author is con- cerned here with only pointing out the possibilities of such taxes. -82- These methods of financing do not discriminate against any park user and are not as openly criticised as an entrance fee is. They also are not subject to liability as in the case of the entrance fee. They produce higher returns than the entrance fee and make possible long-range capital development plans not in- fluenced by the "whims" of the legislature. Other methods should be seriously investigated by the State Park Agency as alternative to an entrance fee. They could be more beneficial to both the state and the user. CHAPTER VI RECOMMENDATIONS The advantages and disadvantages of entrance fees have been explored in the previous chapters. A definition of the entrance fee has been suggested and methods of collecting the entrance fee have been explored. These factors form a basis from which recommendations will be proposed on the issue of entrance fees in Michigan State Parks. 1. 30 Entrance fees should not be charged in state park or recreation areas. If an entrance fee must be charged, it should be in accordance with recom- mendations two and three following. Entrance fees should not be charged in park areas of state-wide significance. Entrance fees tend to lessen the State's responsibility to provide for the general welfare. This would include areas of scenic, geologic, archeologic, and historic value. These areas should remain open to the public with- out any type of hinderance to entrance. Entrance fees should only be charged in State Recre- ational Areas of a user-oriented type, strategically placed, that serve areas of highpopulation concen- tration or serve as stops for travelers. These areas serve only special segments of the State's pop- ulation and do not have sufficient significance to draw users from the entire state. The revenue de- rived from the entrance fee in these parks should -83- (50 -84- be used for capital developments of similar areas. From this standpoint, the entrance fee is justified in this type of park. The true net profit derived from the entrance fee should be carefully calculated. All costs of ad- ministration and enforcement should be carefully investigated to determine if the entrance fee is actually producing a significant profit. There are many hidden costs. Only one of the states that have an entrance fee has been able to establish, or will provide, accurate records of the expenses connected With such a fee. One alternative, that should be investigated by the legislature to increase the capital development bonding program beyond its present capacity is to deviate revenues from other operations to the bond- _....__——r""' in an was producing capacity. These revenues would include money de- rived concessions, camping, rental of equipment and other operated facilities. For 1961 these additional revenues amounted to $823,051 and if used would have more than doubled the 1961 bonding capacity. Other methods of obtaining revenue for capital de- velopments should be explored. From the facts pre- sented it can be found that the entrance fee is not producing a sufficient amount of revenue to meet 9. \ -85- the demand for areas and facilities. A bond issue financed by a special tax, or fund, may produce the amount of revenue needed. The cigarette tax that is financing a $50 million bond issue for land ac- quisition, in Wisconsin State Parks, may be a step in the right direction. Revenue derived by means such as these can produce a higher amount of revenue than the entrance fee, and is less open to public criticism. The problem of liability of the state isalso diminished for accidents occurring in the state park system. Fees should be charged for special facilities that are already developed in state parks. This would include facilities that have high development costs, that have high operative costs, that serve special interest groups, or that involve exclusive use of facilities. These facilities are beyond the re- sponsibility of the state to provide, and should be avoided if possible. Private enterprise should be encouraged to develop special use facilities that are beyond the responsi- bility of the state. Financial aid and professional advice on development and operation can come from State and Federal agencies. State agenciesflshguldahavE’a”strict policyaof’not entering into_competitignggiphwpriygte enterprise -—-—..._. __ wgwp ~86- 1n provi MWed_recreati.onel_ facilities. Entrange fees should not be charged bl EE§_§33te park agencyfltqstimulate privaterdevelepment and duplication of the general park type facility. Facts have been presented and recommendations have been made. The responsibility of the state to provide recreational areas and facilities is imperative. All StatefiandfFederalx _...,__.¢—--“‘ agencies providin outdgggfireereatignal,serxieenand_pri¥ate enterprisensheuld.workacloselyltogetheratompronide_£grw;he tortsLsmgfmll . APPENDIX -37- Department of Resource Development Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan October 16, 1962 Superintendent of State Parks: I am a graduate student at Michigan State University working on a Master of Science Degree in Park Management. As a partial fulfillment for the requirements of this degree, I am writing a thesis on the in- vestigation of the vehicle entrance fee in state parks. To gain an over-all viewpoint of the vehicle entrance fee, I am interested in obtaining answers to several questions on the vehicle entrance fee in your state. Enclosed is a form.with several questions pertaining to the vehicle entrance fee. I would be very grateful if this form.was com- pleted as soon.as possible and returned to me. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my request. Sincerely, Lyle W. Hannahs Graduate Research.Assistant ~88- QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How long have your state parks had a vehicle entrance fee? 2. What is the vehicle entrance charge? Season , Daily . 3. What was the trUe gross and true net incomes from the vehicle en- trance fee for the last fiscal year. Gross Net . A. How is the revenue being used, derived from the vehicle entrance fee?" Approximate per cent used. . Land aquisition , Capital Improvemen . Administration___ , Maintenance . Other (Specify) . 5. What areas are vehicles required to have a vehicle entrance permit in? Check Sites of Historic significance , Sites of unique stateawide beauty . Sites of geological or archeological significance , Camp A picnic areas , All state parks , Other (specify) ' 6. If your state has a legislative appropriation besides the vehicle entrance fee for state parks, what was it for the past fiscal year? 5 . Has it decreased because of additional revenue from the vehicle entrance fee? . REMARKS: -89- omog .3533: .3 93.55 .8? “magnum U322 23 Ho 3980 553513 .3980 mo swarm .mS “consom a.~4 mao.am a~.mo Rm.:m as.» mmo.mo;.~ m;.om mun.~mm uo.ma ~mm.0~:.~ coma «.m: mflo.~m R~.oo mm.mm so.” a-.mw:.u am.mm 44o.awm.a mfi.o~ m~H.on.~ cams «.ac mHo.~m Rm.~m mm.~: mm.m Nmo.oma.~ Rm.mo oom.aam.~ mm.om -:.woo.m owms «.am mso.am mm.mm as.~c am.a omm.o;m.~ am.a: mao.mom.n ma.~m mmm.~:m.; 0mm” «.mm ms0.~m .am.am a~.mo mm.os am~.HOm.s mc.s aom.4m:.n am.w cos.om~.m cams a.HHH mHo.~m mo.am mm.mc m;.- Hoo.mo~.~ ac.o~ a~o.nom.a u~.- eo~.-m.o omma N.~m~ mHo.~m awn who RH.:N «Hm.pma.~ m~.NN NMs.ama.m am.wm am~.mmw.a coma Hosa one: Asa.umg annum cane: nose»; Hausa coscud cant: ease»; fiance 45.qu no.2 @53qu mcauououm mcmpououm Snood ecu.— Hfloa no a .35 ~26 hobo macho vacuum—H onuouuqh Quasar—H we a no a no a ommvuocH mm“ camouflaged as an» macaw onaaasaom coco mango Egan «5 Eden at. mo azmmh ZOHHSEOQ H ”mi—m5. TABLE II CLASS OF WORKERS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Class of Worker I. AGRICULTURAL A. B. Male Employed 100% Private Wage and Salary Workers Government Workers Self-Employed Workers Unpaid Family Workers Female Employed 100% Private Wage and Salary Workers Government Workers Self-Employed Workers Unpaid Family Workers II. NONqAGRICULTURAL A. B. Source: Male Employed 100% Private Wage and Salary Workers Government Workers Self-Employed Workers Unpaid Family Workers Female Employed 100% Private Wage and Salary Workers Government Workers Self-Employed Workers Unpaid Family Workers U.S. Bureau of Census, Eighteenth Census of the United.States: Number 83.23h 20,292 31h 589571 b.057 8,886 29851 31 3,087 2,917 l,81h,000 1,h81,081 16h,329 167,2h2 2,1h8 819,9hh 6hS.75h 129,009 31.399 13,782 Per cent 100.0% 2h.h% h% 70.1% u.9% 100.0% 32.1% .3% 3h.7% 32.8% 100.0% 81.6% 9.1% 9.2% .1% 100.0% 78.8% 15.7% 3.8% 1.7% 1960. General Social and Economic Characteristic§,.p. 198. -91- TABLE III AGE BY FIVE YEAR GROUPS FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN (By per cent) Male Female 0:83:53 1960 1930 1960 1930 Under 5 12.7% 9.8% 12.1% 9.8% 5-9 11.5 9.8 10.9 10.3 10-18 9.7 9.1 9.3 9.7 15-19 7.1 8.3 7.3 8.9 20-28 5.8 8.8 6.0 8.9 25-29 5.9 8.6 6.2 8.5 30.38 6.9 8.2 6.9 7.9 35-39 7.0 8.5 7.2 7.8 80-88 6.8 7.3 6.6 6.5 85-89 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.8 50-58 I 5.2 8.7 5.0 8.8 55-59 . 8.6 3.6 8.8 3.5 60-68 3.8 2.8 3.7 2.8 65-69 3.2 2.2 3.2 2.2 70-78 2.3 1.5 2.8 1.6 75 and over 2.3 1.5 2.9 1.6 MediantAge 28.0 27.9 28.5 26.8 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Eighteenth Census of the United States: 1960. General Population Characteristics, p. 86. -92- TABLE IV INCOME FOR 1959 and 1989 of FAMILIES FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 1959 19h? Total Families 1,9h3,960 ‘ 1,628,875 Income Ranges Number of Families Number 01 Families Under 31000 73,009 152,280 81000-31999 109,991 188,225 82000-82999 ' 121,786 258,780 83000-83999 180,290 368,075 88000-88999 201,825 229,860 85000-85999 265,926 - 153,160 86000-86999 232,807 _ 90,790 87000-89999 861,111 - 98,515 $10,000 and over 338,015 52,180 Median Income 3 6, 256 33,588 Source U.S. Bureau of the Census, Eighteenth Census of the United States: 1960 General,,SociaI'and’Economic Character- istics, p.‘208. ‘ -93.. «comumco gummy .munsmmm pan muoam ouunoaoa=< .compamoommq wounauommscmz ufimnosouv< mom.m~m.ms mma.mm~.o; m:m.mmo.ma ~H~.m~m.~: was.mms.os cam.msm.om mom.mflw.mn mmm.w~p.om omH.oo~.m~ ans.sm6.mm .Hmm.ooa.mm cma.mam.m~ o:~.wom.- ~o~.4~m.m~ ~mm.-m.~m nonsaz 4mm” mmmd «mag ”mmfl 6mm” mam” as.” Nam" cam” mama 44m” mama mam” Hams osmfi cams emm.mns.em cmo.~os.m~ ns~.omm.m~ 6m~.on.;~ sum.sms.- mpo.mpa.sm sm~.6mm.o~ smm.~mm.o~ «64.6mm.- maa.wam.- nus.ooo.mm mm~.wOm.H~ o-.~s~.o~ mam.omm.m~ Ho~.mn:.sfi nonfisz mmmu wmma snag omma mama amma nmms mmmq "mm“ 0mm“ mum" mmma Nam“ eum” mmmu mwma Ammo” ”gunman“: .usoppuo ~o~.oms.m~ mHo.~m~.m~ oao.:o~.ofl mm~.-~.m mum.sns.w mn~.m~o.o ~mm.:mm.m mp:.~m~.a mom.~om.m o~:.~mm.~ «8.36: mam.om~.~ 6mm.uom -~.m~o pam.wm; nonaaz Jams mmmu mums Hmmu owmn mama mama Asa” mama mama Jam” mass mum” “am“ cams 30> 0mm.mom 064.:ms oom.osa oom.moa oc:.>~ omm.am o~a.~m coo.mm oom.sa coo.» oo~.m com om o” a aunsaz musdfin omHHZD mxh 2H monH mOHOS :mzxo >QMH<>Hmm > made ”cousom moms nomH coma mom“ gems momu mama Homfl coma amen mama pawn 0mm“ mama .comua>uonaoo mo pauspumauo cmmwcomz acomomuuoum cam mxuam no comwm>ma «mouvom mam.emm.a~ omo.om:.d ~;~.oss sam.~ mmm.e m-.oH~.mH emas som.~mo.aa mum.m~o.~ mmm.mos on.: 6mm.» psm.mo~.ma pmmu 6mm.aso.as a~o.mnm.n Nos.sos soo.o NmN.x sm~.«oo.ms swam www.moo.mfi mos.mso.m 0mm.sas amm.o sus.sd 63w.H6m.6H mmms mao.asa.ms mms.amc.~ mo~.omfl “no.6 aoa.- mma.mnm.ms coma -m.mem.m~ ooo.o-.~ . -~.~o~ a-.m 4H:.sd ms~.omm.6s Hem” fiance nodsaue .6586 canaaamuo mason “canao neonana>_sao on.» no nous ”Om“ 0» cmms 20mm mxmdm whde ZdOHmUHz OH mozqazmhh< 44805 H> mgmdfi -95- TABLE VII REVENUE FROM OPERATIO S IN MICHIGAN STATE PARKS (Non including vehicle entrance fee) Year Total Revenue 1961 $836,785.00 1960 822,685.77 1959 798,857.65 1958 690,399.12 1957 623,827.31 1956 830,931.90 1955 803,267.52 1958 320,385.88 Source - Records 01 Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks and Recreation Division. ~96- mom.nmw.m Ham.mo~.a mw:.6mH.H mam.- umm.uom.a mas.amm ~H~.65H.~ omms Haw.~o~.m es».mmm.m mam.6ww.s mas.mo mam.669.fi wom.css ama.m6m.s ammo Hm:.om~.m Ho~.o-.s mm~.mflm.a 6H:.H cma.mmo.~ www.054 £06.46m.a mmafl mom.mmm.s amm.mo o~6.H6 awe oao.mmm.s mmm.m6m oaa.mom.s mmas mmo.aom.~ Ha~.~H mom.mfl map.m :mN.HmN.N «mo.dom ~s~.oma.s coma mmo.mmm.~ Hue.o- mmo.o- osm.;:. «Ho.mmm.~ ama.som w-.m~m.s moms muuspmpcuaxm «amok aauao>ouoaH momma “much acueawsvm mamas dance a momaaasm .and momuaaam mumpaHazmaem sasHaau mozazmezHaz 62¢ oneammao mans Amnadfloo ch comam>uomcoo mo unusuuanvo cmmwnomz onhdmmUmm 024 mxmda mo 20HmH>Ho >m mumbhwmzmmxm- HHH> mqde coeaoomom onomamuo acoo~< manage umnumoo cmauano amcooaux oouueanax au~oa coucmao: pcwnxmo amends»; amazonunu . 2.86626 coumm=m>wq caucum sum umunum pcmaxao commonuno umnflo .um .00 cons: comuaooq mom ammo as as no; a mom Goa #. . mmma Nod 0mm * om“ : mama mo: «ma * was: - ow“ mm« mm *7 Noam Hp Hem. me so~.s~ ~H6.m mam.: mum.mm mmm.~ H8: mso.m : - sos.m «mm.mm «a mmm.© sm0.m NAA.HH om mmm.m~ com.“ awn 55H.H mmo.w oo~.c~ umaomu< pououflaoo.esd eum uocmupcm mm~.mas msa.nss apm.m~ mom.6wo.~ omo.am om~.mm :H~.o~a www.mws o-.oo~ ms~.o- ago.mma.s mmo.mm me.mw wpw.m- mm.m mm.ba $0.04 mfl.mm m~.xm &O.Hm Rm.m4 voum360u uoz xumn Mo compuoa mace cm poumsvum oso.oH~ wmm.mmm as.o~ 45m.woo 4o~.mo> &>.: xuma «o comuuoo sumo cm puufisvom oms.H- mam.osfi mm.o~ ~w~.- «so.s~ mm.” mmm.-~ :ao.om~ mm.m~ xuma «o compuoa zqco cm confisvum mso.hwm 0w6.o~a as.oo mmm.mm mam.aw mm.4m xaao wo comuuoa haco cm poumsvom mofl.6m 6~6.Ho am.oo flam.oo ma;.~© m4.m~ Hum.mo~ mmm.~as aQ.MH Hem” coma com op oucnpcuau< wood nummnum spam spasm sans annum“: x886 usasm magma seasonax scam annum nasa>msuuuz xunm annum co>mm ocauo scam uaasm oxas osnomooa «88¢ .uom unmom cascade scam annum mamas“: 886a* «and .uom oumum uoamso anon x886 usmsm unsusaa x886 .smsm cacao: .n.a* :a seam venom muocpoum mason xhdsfimsog x686 usasm exam scam x86 33m 822m... mou< .oom annum coacmmam scam opapm .ancum x886 annum some Adm xumm annum mmanmma auu< Hacossaocoom usaum.cs= cfiam scam osmom «soda xnam usaom oaconfl< x688 unasm uoauusm .m puuafla nup< .Qm>Hmmo mzzm>mm mmomo Qz¢ mozmq om1c>nuh annum pmuuoaoonom acmaxao minuuo vamuxao compmoog om” * amp New” OQNH umom mmwm 46H poamm* Hmmm ”mam mom a mo mmmm “om mm” mugs mm 8 “Hum mum mm own «mm: mwoo m: scam ammouo< pupoodfloo.bs< eum oocmupcm acm.m www.3m oo~.ofl 6mm.a mmm.mm 6H~.m amm.o~ :Hm.nH mm~.ns mmm.m omo.s H46.m~ pom.m mH~.~ moo.- Nem.- 466.4H m:m.mm «53.6 am~.m mos.wfi mmm.~: cmo.ss xumo oamum mummupma xuma oumum uoucoZumCMHnuum xumm upmgm your acmqooam xumm oumpm.oxa4 no>Hmm mx uoeooam a m\ ompoo .ooH mou< .oom oompm momusnuoomozoom cam.wmfi mmm.-~ mo.m~ oma.sno osm.HHm a4.c~ Hamnmos wansma mo.m~ mo>.mm mm~.mma m©.m~ Jam «N: cow mmm so AN NAN.:: oss.~o so.m~ as 8.3 8%, mm. o~w.so~ a:m.ma~ so.; mmo.aafl amm.mm mm.6s «~6.mm m-.0n afl.m~ oH~.;oH mo:.moH mm.” mam.m4~ cam.mflm mo.cm momuam cmonap m~.mm 8:. Mama an confisoou uoz sum as... a...“ on o .m mN6.oHs Hem.m6s aw.ss .puumsvou uoz ”Ho.ms~ om:.ms~ a~.~ mum.- u~m.mm mm.md cea.~mm mam.ass as.- mam.msm ooo.sam.s mm.xm cam.mms wao.mms mm.ms moms comm .62 on oucmocuuoq 00cm -Smamom ~a_uoeooflm w m% oopoa.~ucH nou< .oom venom axe; pmoum xmum annum venomouo boom xnmm upmpm .mp2 ocmoaouoos mood .oom oampm use; ommacoo mou¢ .oom opaum hucxucmm xuam endow xoom «sauna shad venom exam omomoo m .02 uoammam .HucH «and .oom annum 0H~m>couuo xuam opaam conom panache some usaom sasuco xnam upmam_comoxmoz fad 33m 88:385. x886 spasm consensus xuad usmsm suoaoxus aouq .uom annum uqu ocmfimH fl .oz .moum ompoa xuum annum exam ocmHnH xuam ounam cocoosuuch xumm upmpm exam camocHa noc< .oum spasm Ammo: xumm upmpm canHom, OH .02 .moum umvoo .HocH «and .oom uuaam ocmacmmm mood xuo>o~umco annum onm~u ausem omxdzoz oocmeocuz comxomn couuuom uuuosoamz umuo>mue momma 00:4 coflpmooq eum.mms ASN.6HN mom amo.~ 4mm; oom.6~ mm ono.~ memo moH.m mo pao.d 45m * ”mm.m enema mos.os :Hsfl Hmo.mm mam * mpo.m mm wom.m «maps * ssm.mm ommouod oooooaaou.u5< .oom oocmmscm mam.om smfl.m~ amo.~am 4x6.fioa mmm.m~a mmm.~:m mmm.ma sem.wm. mm~.m~ om~.>m “so.mo www.mdq . mmo.mmm o~a.~om aam.moa mum.mom . cam.~m mom.mms mmN.msH csc.was 6mm.H>H mam.~mfi Homq coma oocmscoua¢ Rm.>m ummuo>< “.mm x888 osmsm maze» Rm.mfl nou<.oom annum mmcmunm ooxcm> wa.mw xumm vumum comfims Rm.> xumm mampm mmocnupamz Rm.m4 xuam uumum_p=ofio 09%;: &0.w2 xuam uumum nuauma an.: mou< .oom opmum ooHuobmz mo.mw xumm venom mouse comma: gw.am xnmm uumum poamm cm># mw.as mama woman >umo omno>muh m~.mfi scam annum mmfima cocoemsucmaa cum on mou< oocm lumwmom you moo oc.H oc.mw one a mac comma H OmR Rom umo hug om. oc.w.w uh H mum mcmxuma popmum umo you on. 002 moz mph cw .u>onm one saw Hoonom no“: canon you mm. soc new oucmnpco onomgu> no“: zmam pmo . $00” you moo om. oz mm» mm .ncomuuzuaouaom ouaosflucm common moo mm. cam team Hmuocom oucm om meow Had a you nun mm. oz my» pm . .mnz 4” Ho com uuua nun mm. oz oopwum uoz . mam amm mmm can can cm. oo.mm was m m econ Hauocum ovum om meow :4 .80 non cc..— oo.c.§ up» cm . - museum oz mom mom ado pom om. mm. «w mm» mm . ousamfimmmoz zn poumcmeuob com» com cosuoa x0031: . you you 00. atom. oz my» AH gunmen oz oocmcou comumupm mucus cozpmmfinood zflmmo camnom mum mocmupcm some: umcmapd uo>cuaeH can; omumco ca omz mom Ampaamu annum was» - no assess nzmbhmx mdezzohzmm20 k0 >m bcosuo> xpo>.3oz zomuow zuz ouzcmdawz :uz nuomoacmz monomanommmmz ucmfiaumz mascon onwamzuc uaozuooccou manpowmflmo annum . A vhmm 6m.m6w.sn a cw.mmm.~m a oo.~ms.smo.se oc.Hm~.mo a oo.oom.4o 062 oo.mmm.pafi a ma.m0m.mafi a . mm os.maa.sas a . oo.sm~.ozs a mm.~mo.amm a 00m oucmuucm scum casuum mmomc CC CC CC asaaanumo 8 .6856 Huuocom on nuom osco>om mcouumwmaouao< on» pommuuoua sum uncommon scum oscubom max 50:.wom m pomHmH oponm named .oom ooo.oo~ a cannon oomum no» mo» cmmcooamz .mmaqmom @ exuma ~H< amcumum> pcoauoz 000.00mqmaa mxumn Had xuo>.3oz summon zoz vuzcmosa: zuz mouom 0m ooH.mm: a 66>. manta HH< anemones: manna ooh.m0m a an: zdo HH< mauumszummmmz mam ocmazumz -206: means 6x886 “H4 acmsccH cem.w~o.q a «panama unmanmoo .cm uooz usoo o» mzda s oom.wma.a a pa 6x886 and a.» onussosacou mucuoamfimo .comumzuaouga< aucuo uchmm zuzmom omuoumm: uumum o>aommnmmus 6:8 was: upmsm demo -usasm mum muz<: 0% ammHzomm mmdzzbm x mqmdh N gang ~102- BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Brockman, C. Frank. Recr atio a1 U 0 of W11 . New York: McGraw HilI Book Company, Inc., Igég, Clawson, Marion. Th ami of P k Demand. New York 36, New York: Park, Recreation and Upon Space Projects of thg Tri-State New York Region, R.P.A. Bulletin 94, 19 0. Dahle, Thomas. Michigan State ngk Uggrs Sggvez. East Lansing, Michigan: College 0 Business and Public Re- lations, Michigan State University, 1956. Doell, Chas. E. and Fitsgerald, Gerald B. A Brief fiéfifflEl of Pgrkg 33% Raggegtion 1g thg Unites tgtes. Ch cago, 1 inois: be At at 0 ns itu e, . Ise, John. 9%; National Park Pglicz. Baltimore: The John Hopkins ress, 19 l. Shankland, Robert. St e f h Nat Par . New York: Published by Alfred . Knoph; Second d t on, 1954. 12m Elmer, Arthur C. Progee%ing§ of the Tgnth Annugl Confergnce of 83;}; gag egera nter- gencx Committees or Regre- atio . A Report, Roscommon, Michigan: July 22-25. 1932. Fontana, S.G. Financing Park Systems. A Report to the Second Annual Great Lakes Park re n ng Institute. Pokagon, Indiana: Pokagon State Park, 1948. Proceee n;: 0' the Fir: ....:1 Gre:t ale; P: . _rai.in; nst t e. 19‘ . Pro ee 0 he h r Annual at Lakes Par T ni Ins t to 9 9. Procgegiggs of thg Fourth Annual Great Lgkgg Park Tgaining net tute. 950. Progeegingg of the Elgzenth.éggual Great Lakes Park Training Institgtg. 19 . -103- Outdoor Recreational Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recregtion For America. A Report prepared by tie Out- door Recreation Resources Review Commission. Washington 25, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, January, 1962. ‘ . Federal Documents U.S. Bureau of the Census. Eightegnth Qegsus of the United Stateg: 1260. General Social egg Economig Character- t cs. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Ei htee h ensue of the United St tea: 1 60. Number of ab tents. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Ei htee th Census of the Unite States: 1960. General PopulatIog Charagteristics. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ch in For U c of N tional Foregt Recrgation Areas. Washington, D.C.: I961, UnIted States Forest Service. U.S. Department of Commerce. Stgtigticgl Abstgact of the United States}; 1959. U.S. Department of Commerce. The Toggist Busines : 1957. Washington 25, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Interior. Guigeline. National Conserence on State Parks in Cooperation with the National Park Service, Volume I. State Dogumentg Michigan Conservation Commission. State Park Rgvenue Bonds Serigg . lensing, Michigan: 19 1, Michigan Department 0 onservstion. Michigan Conservation Commission. State Pa k Revenu Bonds Series II. Lansing, Michigan: 1962. Micfiigan Department of Conservation. 7 Michigan Conservation Commission. State Park Revenue Bonds Serie§ III. Lansing, Michigan: 19 3. Michigan Department of Conservation. Michigan Department of Conservation. An Economic Apngigal or Michiggg's State Forggts: 1962. Technical Bulletin 0. 2. -104- Wisconsin Conservation Department. Technical Bulletin No. 2g: 1961. Madison, Wisconsin. Newgpapers State Journal. Lansing, Michigan. August 22, 1962. State Journal. Lansing, Michigan. July 1, 1962. Arnold, Dale. Newspaper source unknown. Periodicals Neilson, N. P. "Future Directions of Recreation" , Joh r, January 1963. "Statistics", Time, December 28, 1962. Unpublished Material Craine, Lyle E. "Providing Space for Michigan' 8 Recreational Needs". Speech presented at the Annual Conference of the Michigan Forestry and Park Association. Department of Conservation, University of Michigan, Feb. 9, 1962. (Mimeographed). State of Michigan Court of Claims. "Dorot Kuhary vs. Michigan State Park Commission, No. 59 ." Lansing, Michigan: Assistant Attorney General' s Office. (Mbmeograph). Texas Technological College. "Texas Today“ Lubbock, Texas, Texas Park Research Project. Twardzik, Louis. "Service to People - A New Perspective to Recreation.” Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University. (Mimeographed). Interviews Personal interview with Paul Barrett, Consultant Michigan Degartment of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan, Nov. 19 2. Personal interview with Charles Harris, Director of Field Operations, Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan, Oct. 1962. HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 31293106578127