Michigan House Bill HB4672

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/25/25
• Refer: 6/25/25
• Report Pass: 9/3/25

Caption

Recreation: state parks; recreation passport requirement; exempt Gold Star family members in NREPA. Amends secs. 74116 & 78119 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.74116 & 324.78119). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4672'25

Summary

HB 4672 amends the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to change who must pay or display proof of the recreation passport or a park pass when entering Michigan state parks and designated state-operated public boating access sites. Under current law, resident vehicles generally need proof that the recreation passport fee has been paid, while nonresident and commercial vehicles need a valid park permit or seasonal pass. The bill keeps those general rules in place but adds an exemption for Gold Star family members, as reflected in the bill caption and the tie-barred companion legislation. The bill also preserves existing exceptions for vehicles on highways within parks, emergency and law-enforcement vehicles, state business vehicles, certain tax-exempt or specially registered vehicles, free fishing days, and department-approved waivers or special events. It continues the civil infraction penalty of up to $100 for violations related to boating access site entry requirements and maintains the evidentiary rule that a vehicle’s registration plate can be prima facie evidence of who parked it at the site. The bill’s practical impact is narrow but important: it would modify park-entry fee enforcement and expand access for a specific class of military survivors, while leaving the broader recreation passport system intact. It affects the Department of Natural Resources’ administration of state park and boating access site entry, as well as motorists who use those facilities, especially nonresident drivers, commercial vehicles, and residents subject to the recreation passport requirement. The general sentiment appears favorable and noncontroversial. The bill was reported from committee with recommendation without amendment by a 15-0 vote, suggesting broad support and little opposition in committee. No committee transcript was provided, but the available vote history indicates consensus around the measure. The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the scope of the exemption: the bill appears to create a targeted benefit for Gold Star family members rather than changing the fee structure for all users. Because the bill is tie-barred to HB 4673, its effect depends on enactment of the companion bill, which is another procedural point relevant to its final implementation.

Impact

HB 4672 would amend sections 74116 and 78119 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to add an exemption from recreation passport and park-pass entry requirements for Gold Star family members, while preserving the existing permit and fee framework for other users. It would continue to regulate access to state parks and designated state-operated public boating access sites, maintain civil infraction penalties for violations, and leave intact the current statutory exceptions for emergency, law-enforcement, maintenance, tax-exempt, and free-fishing-day uses. The bill is tie-barred to HB 4673, so it would not take effect unless the companion bill also becomes law.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests broad support and little controversy. The bill was reported from committee with recommendation without amendment on a unanimous 15-0 vote, indicating a favorable committee sentiment. No opposing testimony or recorded dissent is included in the provided materials, and the measure appears to be viewed as a targeted access exemption rather than a major policy change.

Contention

There is no clear evidence of significant opposition in the provided record. The only notable policy issue is the limited scope of the exemption, which benefits Gold Star family members specifically rather than changing park fees more broadly. Another procedural point is the tie-bar to HB 4673, meaning the bill’s effect depends on companion legislation; that linkage can sometimes be a point of concern because it conditions implementation on another bill’s passage.