AUGUSTA – What appeared at first blush Tuesday to be a simple proposal before the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee was actually quite complicated, said committee members.

State Rep. William Pinkham, R-Lamoine, pitched LD 16 to the committee, a request that day fees at Maine’s state parks be eliminated for residents of the towns in which those parks are located.

After a lengthy discussion, committee members voted unanimously “ought not to pass,” but didn’t let the idea completely die. They referred it to a study committee for a closer look.

Pinkham said Lamoine State Park is 55 acres with a $1.1 million valuation. Because state parks are not taxed, Lamoine is losing $12,000 a year in property taxes, he said.

“Our residents make up the difference by paying higher property taxes,” argued Pinkham, adding that when residents are charged admission to the park, it amounts to paying twice.

“It doesn’t seem right. The local people are getting hit twice. I think this is a fairness issue,” Pinkham said.

He suggested a resident sticker, similar to those used by towns allowing access to transfer stations, to prove residency. Pinkham estimated that since 10 percent of local people use the parks, the financial impact would not be great.

He said the fee change would affect 31 of Maine’s state parks, not including Baxter State Park or the Allagash Waterway.

Sen. Marge L. Kilkelly, D-Lincoln, said, however, that the issue was much greater than a $2 day fee.

“This is part of a larger philosophical issue of who is paying for what benefit,” she said. “Sixty percent of the parks is subsidized by the people across the state, many who never use the parks. How do we keep this as fair as possible?”

As a member of the Legislature’s Access Study Committee, created to study a wide variety of state land issues, Kilkelly said that the residential fee issue “could possibly be folded in with this study. Maybe there are other access issues out there that need to be researched as well.”

Kilkelly said the Access Study Committee would be looking at the cost of recreation in Maine, the cost of access, and the use of the General Fund for services. She said a full report would be made to the Legislature in December.

Fellow Agriculture and Access Committee member Rep. Roderick W. Carr, R-Lincoln, agreed, saying, “Certainly, this is the type of thing we have been discussing.”

Rep. Paul Volenick, D-Brooklin, who also serves on both committees, said further research is needed to see how a no-fee system would affect parking, restrooms and other facilities at the state parks. “Are we going to be taking in less money and then spending more money to expand areas such as parking?” he asked.

Speaking in opposition to the no-fee proposal was Kirstin Hebert of the Maine Municipal Association. “We are concerned about the loss to the state’s General Fund,” with a no-fee system,” she said. Revenues from the parks are included in the revenue sharing that municipalities receive.

Tom Morrison, director of parks for Maine’s Bureau of Land and Parks, said the state receives $1.7 million annually from parks and historic sites through day passes and camping fees.

He said it was not possible to estimate the loss of revenue to the state and it possibly would violate federal regulations by discriminating because of residency. Morrison said that the state used to hold a “free day” but because of the traffic congestion it caused, the municipalities asked that it cease.

One East Winthrop resident, Bill Randall, opposed the no-fee proposal, stating that people should be glad to pay to enjoy the beauty of Maine’s parks.

“Go visit them,” he suggested to committee members. “We’ve got the best parks for the cheapest price in North America.

“Of all the money I spend, I think I get the most value for the money at our beautiful state parks.”