SB439 would require the Board of Land and Natural Resources to adopt rules creating user fees that apply only to nonresidents visiting selected Hawaii state parks and trails. The board would have discretion to determine which parks and trails are covered, whether to use seasonal pricing, and how to adjust fees over time, including inflation indexing tied to the Honolulu Consumer Price Index. The bill also allows the board to later increase, decrease, or repeal the fees through rulemaking.
Revenue collected from these nonresident user fees would be deposited into the state parks special fund, linking the measure directly to park operations and maintenance funding. The bill expressly states that it does not require a minimum fee amount or a minimum number of parks or trails to be subject to the charge, giving the board broad flexibility in implementation. It also includes a delayed effective date of July 1, 3000, which appears to function as a placeholder rather than a near-term implementation date.
Impact
The bill would amend chapter 184, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by adding a new section authorizing and directing the Board of Land and Natural Resources to establish nonresident-only user fees for state parks and trails through administrative rules under chapter 91. It would affect the board’s authority over park access policy, create a dedicated revenue stream for the state parks special fund under section 184-3.4, and potentially shift some costs of park use from residents to visitors. Because the measure is framed as a rulemaking mandate with broad discretion, its practical effect would depend on which sites the board selects and what fee structure it adopts.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as it passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee 12-0 with amendments. The lack of recorded opposition in the provided materials indicates broad support for the concept of charging nonresidents for use of certain state parks and trails. No committee transcript is available, so the discussion record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the bill was viewed as a workable funding mechanism rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s nonresident-only fee structure, which raises questions about fairness, visitor access, and whether charging only nonresidents is an appropriate way to fund park maintenance. Another likely issue is the breadth of discretion given to the board, including the ability to choose which parks and trails are covered, set seasonal pricing, and adjust fees over time without a statutory minimum or maximum. Supporters would likely emphasize dedicated funding for parks and the ability to manage high-use sites, while critics may focus on implementation uncertainty, possible impacts on tourism, and whether the policy creates unequal treatment between residents and visitors.