Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the State Parks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee advances bill allowing higher nonresident fees at state parks (SB 511)

New Hampshire Senate Ways & Means Committee · January 21, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Deputy chief of staff Grant Bossi presented SB 511, which would allow the parks system to charge higher fees to out-of-state visitors and expand discounts for veterans and school groups; committee debated fiscal risks and voted 'Ought to Pass' on the record.

Grant Bossi introduced Senate Bill 511 on behalf of Sen. Keith Murphy, explaining the bill would allow New Hampshire’s park system to set different entrance fees for nonresident visitors and to expand targeted discounts for veterans and school groups. Bossi handed out sponsor materials comparing in-state and out-of-state fees in neighboring states.

Committee members and witnesses raised fiscal concerns. The Department’s fiscal note, cited in committee, estimated that substantial changes could deter visitation by 5% to 20% in a worst-case scenario; one member sought reassurance the parks’ self-funded structure and commissioner oversight would prevent fee cuts that harm operations. Committee members also discussed reciprocity with neighboring states and whether the parks commissioner retains fee-setting authority under the statute.

The chair noted uncertainty in the fiscal impacts but that modest resident fee reductions coupled with higher nonresident fees could net to zero or be revenue positive. On the motion floor the committee recorded an 'Ought to Pass' recommendation and placed the bill on consent for further processing.

Why it matters: The bill alters how the parks system can price access for visitors, which could change revenue available for maintenance and services. Fiscal impacts depend on visitor elasticity and implementation decisions by the parks commissioner.

What’s next: The measure was advanced by the committee and may be reviewed further in the Finance Committee for fiscal analysis.