Proposal 1 ballot measure would change rules on Michigan parks fund

Proponents of a ballot measure that would change how Michigan spends its Natural Resources Trust Fund say the proposed change would help expand public recreation infrastructure, such as this bike trail that abruptly ends near Lansing’s southeastern border. (Bridge photo by Kelly House)

Lansing Parks and Recreation Director Brett Kaschinske is proud to oversee a system that boasts more parks per capita than almost every major U.S. city. 

But with 111 parks in the city’s ownership, he said, finding money to update and improve them has become a bigger priority than adding more land to the system.

“You’ve got to maintain what you’ve got,” he said, and that has become harder in recent years as state lawmakers have diverted billions of dollars away from local government budgets.

There are park bathrooms that need upgrading. Playgrounds due for replacement. A bicycle and pedestrian trail that ends abruptly near Lansing’s southeastern edge, which Kaschinske dreams of extending into East Lansing.


“Especially during the pandemic, we’re seeing more and more people using these facilities and wanting those enhancements,” he said. 

As state voters consider a ballot measure this fall that would change the way Michigan spends oil and gas royalties that support Michigan’s public recreation lands — from state parks and forests to local natural areas — Kaschinske sees an opportunity to tick some of those park projects off his to-do list. 

Proposal 1 would enable Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund managers to spend a greater share of the fund on development projects such as playgrounds, restrooms and trails, as opposed to the land buys that currently get about three-quarters of the fund’s money. 

The proposal would also eventually expand the fund by lifting a cap that halted new deposits in 2011.

The measure has attracted broad support from dozens of groups representing environmentalists and industry, tourism and labor. Supporters say the proposed changes will help state and local recreational land managers make needed updates to facilities while expanding amenities to cater to a new generation of land users. 

But opponents argue the changes improperly divert money away from land preservation to plug holes in state and local parks budgets.

The Pigeon River compromise

The trust fund’s roots date back to the 1970s, when Michiganders were locked in fiery debate over Michigan’s sale of oil and gas drilling rights in the Pigeon River Country State Forest northeast of Gaylord. In a compromise with drilling opponents, Michigan lawmakers in 1976 passed a bill that directed revenue from state mineral sales and leases to resource protection and outdoor recreation. 

Eight years later, when a budget crisis prompted lawmakers to eye the royalties to plug Michigan’s budget gap, voters amended the Michigan Constitution to create the Natural Resources Trust Fund, ensuring the money can’t be used for other priorities without their approval.

In the decades since, the fund has awarded $1.2 billion in grants to projects in all 83 Michigan counties. Grant dollars have purchased conservation land along the Detroit River, extended the Pere Marquette Rail Trail between Midland and Clare, and expanded Munising’s Tourist Park Campground, along with many other projects.

The fund has been an “incredibly important” revenue source for Michigan’s public lands, said Bill Rustem, a longtime Republican environmental adviser who sits on the trust fund board.

Without it, Rustem said, “we’d have far fewer trails than we have today. Some state parks would be smaller. You wouldn’t have natural areas in many counties and some species in Michigan just wouldn’t exist.”

But rules that limit the board’s ability to spend money on park development projects such as bike trails, boat launches, interpretive signs and accessibility improvements for disabled users mean that, sometimes, the board is forced to reject good ideas, Rustem said. 

State law requires the board to spend at least 25 percent of the fund’s annual disbursements on land purchases, and no more than 25 percent on development projects. Because of the restrictions on development grants, the vast majority of grant dollars have paid for land acquisitions.

The ballot measure would change that formula, requiring the board to spend at least 25 percent each on land acquisition and development, while letting the board decide how to spend the rest.

It would also lift a $500 million cap that the fund reached in 2011. Since then, mineral royalties have instead gone into the State Parks Endowment Fund, where they pay for land purchases, capital improvements and other priorities at state parks. Under this year’s proposed changes, revenue would flow back into the Natural Resources Trust Fund once the parks fund reaches its $800 million cap — a milestone that could take decades to reach. 

Needed flexibility, or a hit to land preservation?

Proponents of Proposal 1, including the Michigan Environmental Council, The Nature Conservancy, the League of Women Voters and a host of other groups, say it would give fund managers the flexibility they need to keep Michigan’s parks and public lands relevant as park users’ interests change while still leaving plenty of money to buy new land.

But a handful of environmental and conservation groups, including the Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Michigan Democratic Party Environmental Caucus, oppose the measure, which they said they fear may undermine land preservation efforts that the trust has traditionally supported. 

Those differing views highlight a common tension in public lands management across the country, said Elizabeth Perry, an assistant professor at Michigan State University’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources who studies trends in land management.

Land managers must balance the desire to expand public lands with the reality that it costs money to maintain them and provide the amenities that keep land users coming back.

That tension has increased, Perry said, as park budgets have tightened and recreational trends have shifted away from activities such as hunting and fishing and toward hiking, biking, paddling and other pursuits that may require different infrastructure. 

“If parks aren’t socially relevant, then they risk being erased,” Perry said. “People won’t protect what they don’t see the value of. So we have to continually revisit, how are our parks relevant? Who is coming to the parks, what are they doing, and how can we serve them better?”

Today’s public land users want bike paths, hiking trails, modern restrooms and other facilities that many recreation lands lack, said Clay Summers, executive director of the Michigan Recreation & Park Association, which supports the proposal.

“If Michigan wants to continue to be a state that is looked at as a leader in conservation and recreation, these funding mechanisms have to be updated,” Summers said.

But Andrew Nowicki, Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party Environmental Caucus, sees it differently. Nowicki said the group supports upgrading infrastructure on public lands, but it would be “shortsighted” to pay for it by shifting money away from land protection. He also bristled at the state’s continued dependence on oil and gas extraction to fund conservation.

“We’re looking at a long-term band-aid to our parks, at the cost of diverting funding away from land acquisitions that are essential to conservation,” Nowicki said.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


middle of the mit
Thu, 10/15/2020 - 8:20pm

Here comes the refried beans, pasta and guacamole! Something has gotta stick to the wall....don't ya think?

<<<— in part because of the Proposal A growth caps — have created a no-win situation for cities that have lower tax bases: Either pass high millage rates to fund services, or keep tax rates low and cut services.>>>

But we are talking about Lansing. Does Lansing have a low tax base? LOL!! My conservative area? That is what we spend a good deal of our money on......parks and recreation for you folks that come up here.

Which..........boggles my mind. Why would you come up here where there are THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF WOODLAND for your parks..........and yet.......instead of oak and maple want what? Metal playgrounds for the kids the to play on? You want well groomed and kept trails to walk on.......through the woods?

Pay for it! But that means more tax money!


I don't know whether I am going to vote for this or not. I just find it hilarious that people want to enjoy the Great outdoors..............without it actually BEING the Great outdoors.

It's much more fun when you do it yourself.

Fri, 10/16/2020 - 9:01am

Remember when wifes got to fish on the husband's License ? And John Englar another lying republicans said Ferr state parks IF we can charge the wife also!!! WHAT happen to the free parks!!!!!!

Fri, 10/16/2020 - 9:11am

This is a tough one. Land needs to be preserved, perhaps even in an unimproved state to allow nature to thrive. But the many parks purchased with these funds need to be maintained as well. I’d feel much better about this Proposal had the minimum limit for land purchase been higher, say 50%. I lean slightly against this, but I understand why people support it.

Sun, 10/25/2020 - 12:27am

Mark's comment shows how this amendment is both good and bad. It would allow more than 25% of trust fund dollars to be spent on park facilities, which is good, but it would also allow AS LITTLE as 25% of trust fund dollars to be spent on land acquisition. If 75% of MNRTF funds were spent on facilities and only 25% on land acquisition, that would be contrary to what citizens voted for when they created this fund! I agree, this is a tough one. It gives power to the MNRTF Board to decide these allocations, but I am not sure I want to trust them in perpetuity.

Mark Meadows
Fri, 10/16/2020 - 9:35am

Land preservation is an important component of the opposition to Proposal 20-1 but the direction of funds away from that purpose is not the only reason to vote against it. The proposal effectively freezes the amount of revenue available to accomplish any mission the fund may have for over three decades (see the Citizens Research Council's analysis of this proposal). That means the fund will have steadily reduced buying power as it is impacted by inflationary land and construction increases. Currently the fund is allowed to retain some dollars for future use, which results in greater earnings and more money for projects and acquisitions. This especially benefits local governments. The proposal requires this money to be divested. The proper way to fund local government maintainence projects is to make that a component of the State Parks Endowment Fund, which is receiving all oil and gas revenues today.

Shannon Thor
Fri, 10/16/2020 - 9:49am

You provided a link for the "host of other groups" who are proponents of the proposal. You did not provide a similar link for the "groups" that oppose the proposal. This article doesn't give as much detail on the concerns of the groups opposed.

Fri, 10/16/2020 - 10:33am

Bridge appears like most every publication to not understand when voting began in this state! I voted weeks ago and it would have been helpful to have this information.

Voting day is no longer November 3rd in this state and the media needs to adjust to the change so voters have all the information they need to make informative choices.

Tue, 10/27/2020 - 8:03pm

You can spoil your ballot and get a new one. I think I might do that.

I do agree though that it would of been nicer to have more information on this ballot proposal. I was under the impression that the caps needed to be raised or else the money would go to the general fund.

I definitely think the Board of Canvassing should of done a better job writing the ballot question though.

John Q. Public
Fri, 10/16/2020 - 11:12am

I'm voting 'no' because here's the kind of state we live in now: if this passes, you can look forward to a time when the economic development lobbyists get their lapdogs back in office. Then they'll use their economic power via dark money to change the definition of 'park'. It will include industrial parks, office parks, condominium get the picture. This is just step one of a money grab allowing the trust fund to be used to destroy what it is supposed to protect.

Conan Smith
Sun, 10/18/2020 - 10:47am

I'd add a note that the Michigan Democratic Party approved a resolution supporting Proposal 1 at their full convention earlier this year.

Fight deceit
Sun, 10/18/2020 - 3:19pm

I agree with the sentiments of Andrew Nowicki and already voted NO.