SB511

Testimony in Opposition to SB 511-FN An Act Relative to State Park Fees for State Residents To the Honorable Members of the Committee, I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to SB 511-FN. At first glance, this bill appears reasonable—offering reduced park entry fees for New Hampshire residents. However, the issue is not whether residents should pay less. The issue is how this bill restructures decision-making, funding, and long-term management of the state park system. This bill mandates that resident fees be set at no more than 50% of non-resident fees. That is not a policy goal—it is a statutory pricing formula. It removes flexibility from the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources and replaces operational decision-making with fixed political ratios. Park management should be responsive to costs, usage patterns, and maintenance needs—not constrained by rigid formulas written into law. More concerning is that the bill does not provide any funding to offset the revenue changes it creates. According to the fiscal note, reducing resident fees could result in a loss of over $1 million annually, while attempts to offset that loss through higher non-resident fees may reduce visitation and produce unpredictable outcomes. This leaves the system in a structurally unstable position. If revenues decline, the burden must fall somewhere—either through reduced maintenance and services, increased fees in other areas, or future taxpayer subsidies. In effect, this bill alters the financial structure of the park system without stabilizing it. Additionally, the bill introduces new administrative burdens. Verifying residency, modifying fee systems, and managing disputes at park entrances will increase costs and operational complexity. These are not minor adjustments; they represent a shift toward a more bureaucratic and less efficient system. There is also a broader concern. This bill establishes a framework of differential pricing based on classification. Today it is residents versus non-residents. Tomorrow it may expand to additional categories. Once pricing becomes a political tool rather than a management tool, it invites continual revision and pressure. New Hampshire’s park system has long operated under the principle that fees should recover a reasonable portion of costs while remaining accessible to the public. This bill moves away from that principle and toward a system of mandated pricing and uncertain subsidy. For these reasons, I urge the committee to consider not just the intent of the bill, but its structural consequences. SB 511-FN does not simply adjust fees—it creates a framework that reduces flexibility, increases administrative burden, and introduces financial uncertainty into a system that should remain stable and responsibly managed. I respectfully urge you to vote Ought Not to Pass on SB 511-FN. Respectfully submitted, Matthew Rhodes