$10 Fee increase for Michigan Trail Pass next year

[nytro_rtx]

I still think the $45 is a great deal, I'm also not sure on Wi. trail pass prices($35?? still a great deal) cause I didn't buy one this year as planned with the melt down. I went dirt biking this weekend at a local OHV Park and paid $20 for the afternoon to ride. I have several hundred acres to ride rite from my door but I also enjoy riding other areas & places as well. I was there from about 12:30 until about 5:00 so it cost me a lil under $10/hr to ride and for a $45 trail pass in Mi. to ride all year it seems like a great deal!! I'm not trying to change anyones mind, just an example of the cost of any recreation we love to do.
nytro

 

[polarisrider1]

Ahhh, I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to figure this out!

Congrats, you have just passed the tourism marketing advanced course.

The essence of successful tourism is the overnight stay. While casual users that drive across the border to have a bowl of chili at Roger's Bar are not unwelcome, true tourism success comes from loyal consumers that stay overnight for an extended period, and major success is when those consumers repeat.

The purpose of the snowmobile trail system in the UP is to support tourism so these businesses can sell lodging, gas, beer, and food in the winter.

Changing the rate to $45 will filter out some low spend casual users who were costing more than they brought in, while maintaining product quality and enticing existing consumers to repeat. Why? Because they had a great time, and they now have a greater upfront investment that will incent them to repeat.

I remember a while ago when John asked why people didn't go to northern MN to snowmobile. Simple. As an owner of 2 sleds I have already spent $90 to buy season passes to MI, and since I already belong to this "club", I am incented to repeat in MI. As long as the trails are great and the people are friendly I will continue to do so.

As with all consumer products, there is a point at which the pass becomes too expensive, and in time I may tire of MI and look elsewhere. But by increasing my admission price you are increasing my loyalty and I may choose to make an incremental trip. As long as the money is used to maintain product quality I am happy. And MI retains and possibly increases its business with high volume, high margin customers.

Thank you! That is exactly how it works. Marketing.

 

[booondocker]

Ahhh, I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to figure this out!

Congrats, you have just passed the tourism marketing advanced course.

The essence of successful tourism is the overnight stay. While casual users that drive across the border to have a bowl of chili at Roger's Bar are not unwelcome, true tourism success comes from loyal consumers that stay overnight for an extended period, and major success is when those consumers repeat.

The purpose of the snowmobile trail system in the UP is to support tourism so these businesses can sell lodging, gas, beer, and food in the winter.

Changing the rate to $45 will filter out some low spend casual users who were costing more than they brought in, while maintaining product quality and enticing existing consumers to repeat. Why? Because they had a great time, and they now have a greater upfront investment that will incent them to repeat.

I remember a while ago when John asked why people didn't go to northern MN to snowmobile. Simple. As an owner of 2 sleds I have already spent $90 to buy season passes to MI, and since I already belong to this "club", I am incented to repeat in MI. As long as the trails are great and the people are friendly I will continue to do so.

As with all consumer products, there is a point at which the pass becomes too expensive, and in time I may tire of MI and look elsewhere. But by increasing my admission price you are increasing my loyalty and I may choose to make an incremental trip. As long as the money is used to maintain product quality I am happy. And MI retains and possibly increases its business with high volume, high margin customers.

If one guy bought one trail pass and spent one hour in Michigan to buy one burger, how was that a "cost more than they brought in" condition?

And while this "theory" of costing more so you have to spend more time there sounds good, if this were the case, Ontario would be flooded with tourists having to "get their money's worth" over there, and clearly it has had a reverse effect. Few go there because it cost too darn much to buy a trail pass.

Using this same ideology, perhaps the answer to "the problem" is to drop the fee completely and lure in more out of state folks, and find a way to tap the government as they do in other industries, such as sport arena's development and fees, by putting a 1/4% fee on hotels and bar fees gathering up the necessary funds to support the trail systems by use of other sources. After all, right now, hotels, and bars are reaping the rewards without much in contribution? (yeah, can you believe I said that??)

I am NOT holding my breath on that one because States are very protective of each other States processes and fees and keep them "in-line" so that they don't take advantage of a lower fee in one state compared to another.

It seems crazy, but it is sort of a commerce code, NOT to get real competitive by REDUCING fees thereby making another state look expensive.

 

[michaeladams]

Yes, your are right. I was quoting your comment and only the first sentence of my reply related to your comment. The rest of it wasn't directed at you but at others on the thread and board who often like to use the phrase "pay to play". I didn't transition well between what I wanted to say to you and what I wanted to say to the thread over all. Didn't mean to attack you.

i too am sorry for jumping on it,sorry

 

[dcsnomo]

If one guy bought one trail pass and spent one hour in Michigan to buy one burger, how was that a "cost more than they brought in" condition?

And while this "theory" of costing more so you have to spend more time there sounds good, if this were the case, Ontario would be flooded with tourists having to "get their money's worth" over there, and clearly it has had a reverse effect. Few go there because it cost too darn much to buy a trail pass.

Using this same ideology, perhaps the answer to "the problem" is to drop the fee completely and lure in more out of state folks, and find a way to tap the government as they do in other industries, such as sport arena's development and fees, by putting a 1/4% fee on hotels and bar fees gathering up the necessary funds to support the trail systems by use of other sources. After all, right now, hotels, and bars are reaping the rewards without much in contribution? (yeah, can you believe I said that??)

I am NOT holding my breath on that one because States are very protective of each other States processes and fees and keep them "in-line" so that they don't take advantage of a lower fee in one state compared to another.

It seems crazy, but it is sort of a commerce code, NOT to get real competitive by REDUCING fees thereby making another state look expensive.

I may have "jumped the shark" a bit stating that a 1 burger visitor cost more than he brought in, but remember, the trails (product) have a cost of goods to develop them, build infrastructure, and maintain them. They are a product, there is a cost of goods. If you had a business, and you spent all that money to produce your product, when you had to make a pricing decision that might alienate low volume customers while building loyalty among high volume customers you would clearly choose to increase loyalty among high volume loyal customers.

As for the Ontario issue, please note that in my post I clearly said that there is a point where price becomes too high and volume falls. Apparently Ontario has exceeded that point.

As for reducing the fee to zero, the problem is that your product quality declines and you have no money to market the product. Yes, alternative sources of funding are possible, but the beauty of a "user-fee" system (rather than a tax) is that only users pay for the product, and not everyone else. That's why sports arena projects are facing such opposition, why should an 85 year old widow in Livonia have to pay extra sales tax on purchases to support a stadium she will never see, use, or benefit from.

While you and I may differ, I believe the businesses that benefit from this tourism do in fact make quite a contribution. They hire people, which reduces unemployment claims. They pay property taxes and income taxes. And they pay their employees, who then go buy groceries, and gas, and rent or buy homes, or buy cars, and the economy works.

And it's funded by the users, not the taxpayers, and the beauty of it is that it is tourism marketing, which means you have successfully brought new, mostly out of state money, into your communities. It is new money, and the tourists were happy to pay the cost of goods for you!

 

[xcr440]

Using this same ideology, perhaps the answer to "the problem" is to drop the fee completely and lure in more out of state folks, and find a way to tap the government as they do in other industries, such as sport arena's development and fees, by putting a 1/4% fee on hotels and bar fees gathering up the necessary funds to support the trail systems by use of other sources. After all, right now, hotels, and bars are reaping the rewards without much in contribution? (yeah, can you believe I said that??)

Wouldn't that be the day, that the snowmobile industry could have the same kind of power and lobbyists the big money sports teams and owners have developed to get what they want, without having to pay for it. I agree, not holding my breath.

 

[Admin]

After all, right now, hotels, and bars are reaping the rewards without much in contribution

For most rural areas, this statement could not have been further from the truth than if you were standing in another galaxy while saying it Boon.

Who drives the groomers? Who maintains the trails in the preseason? Who is on the local search and rescue? All volunteer by the way.

In case you are stumbling for the answer on this one, it is the local business owners that benefit from the snowmobile trail system.

-John

 

[longtrack]

I will no doubt spend the $180 on my 4 Permits next year and not complain. BUT I live 90 Miles from the UP Border and there are many people here that will not buy the Permit to Trailer to the UP for a Day ride like we always do. When the permit was $25 we hauled several Kids up there to ride for a Day. I think $45 will discourage some of these Kids from going up there and will possibly cut back on the number of permits sold. There were several Sleds here this year that did not have MI Permits on them. Just like any TAX that is raised it does not always raise more money. There is a breaking point. A $10 1 Day permit could solve this problem.

I also went to the Black Hills this year and there are NO permits fees there, so I guess they are promoting things a little differently. Their Trails were maintained and Groomed to a level that was hard to beat.

 

[Wild Bill]

At the end of the season, the extra $10 expense over the season will become minimal.

Why do I go to the UP?

-To ride the best trails.
-Cheese curds at the Gogebic Lodge
-Delicious beers at the Ishpeming Brewery
-Craving the friendly atmosphere and breakfast at Krupp's.
-Friendly dealers at the Watersmeet Casino Craps table, $2 Craps!
-Miles and miles of beautiful scenery.
-Many more to name, but those are my favorites.
-And I still have more favorite places to discover, trails to ride, and people to meet!

I don't like paying more for stuff, regardless if it is a small expenditure or a large one, but from the things I listed above, my perceived value is still priceless. Man I can't wait for next year!!

 

[polarisrider1]

I may have "jumped the shark" a bit stating that a 1 burger visitor cost more than he brought in, but remember, the trails (product) have a cost of goods to develop them, build infrastructure, and maintain them. They are a product, there is a cost of goods. If you had a business, and you spent all that money to produce your product, when you had to make a pricing decision that might alienate low volume customers while building loyalty among high volume customers you would clearly choose to increase loyalty among high volume loyal customers.

As for the Ontario issue, please note that in my post I clearly said that there is a point where price becomes too high and volume falls. Apparently Ontario has exceeded that point.

As for reducing the fee to zero, the problem is that your product quality declines and you have no money to market the product. Yes, alternative sources of funding are possible, but the beauty of a "user-fee" system (rather than a tax) is that only users pay for the product, and not everyone else. That's why sports arena projects are facing such opposition, why should an 85 year old widow in Livonia have to pay extra sales tax on purchases to support a stadium she will never see, use, or benefit from.

While you and I may differ, I believe the businesses that benefit from this tourism do in fact make quite a contribution. They hire people, which reduces unemployment claims. They pay property taxes and income taxes. And they pay their employees, who then go buy groceries, and gas, and rent or buy homes, or buy cars, and the economy works.

And it's funded by the users, not the taxpayers, and the beauty of it is that it is tourism marketing, which means you have successfully brought new, mostly out of state money, into your communities. It is new money, and the tourists were happy to pay the cost of goods for you!

Totally correct. The trail system is a business. Those who have businesses know that the above statements are true if the system is to servive. Adding to it, and stated in a post of mine above, We as active snowmobilers and MSA members were all at discussion on the "Pay to play" method of funding as to the pros and cons of it. We do get funding from some gas taxes as well. But Grandma should not have to subsidize snowmobiling was the general thought. We do have a lobby who fights for our rights as snowmobilers in Michigan. I truly recommend spending some time on their site. www.msasnow.org I and most all your questions on this increase can be answers there. Also look into joining the MSA to protect our trails above just purchasing the trail permits. They also send you a way cool snowmobile magazine ea. month.

 

[polarisrider1]

Keeping Watch on the Funds

The money collected from snowmobile registrations over the last two years has not been spent, and is in the Permanent Snowmobile Trail Easement subaccount. Rest assured, MSA is keeping an eye on all of the money collected from snowmobilers. We are making sure it will be spent for the intended use!

This was information I pulled from the VP of MSA.

 

[booondocker]

For most rural areas, this statement could not have been further from the truth than if you were standing in another galaxy while saying it Boon.

Who drives the groomers? Who maintains the trails in the preseason? Who is on the local search and rescue? All volunteer by the way.

In case you are stumbling for the answer on this one, it is the local business owners that benefit from the snowmobile trail system.

-John

I have no beef and agree completely with the last statement. While it is not the only sustainable income for these businesses, we need to remember as we have read on this site over and over again, that once you get folks to the beautiful U.P.....they often come back in other seasons. So if a place like Krupps....does a great job in the winter, they are all along hoping to turn that customer into more than just a sledding customer but a 4 season customer.

This is why the higher fee can hurt Michigan. Boldly upping the fee hoping that it won't damage the tourist trade is blindly shallow and it will have consequences, just like shutting down the roadside privies in November tell tourists in winter, stay home.

My point was that businesses stand to gain the most from a winter tourist trade, and therefore they should contribute the most too. Hotels, Motels, cabins, eateries, bars, gas stations, and sled sales places all reap the rewards of having Joe Lunch-bucket show up and spread his money around. This then is the economy of God's country. Live and or hurt based upon how many tourists show up. Do we really want to thumb our nose at that prospect and say...hey, your money is peanuts....we want the big spenders only???

And while my intent was not to step on toes of those who volunteer to run groomers, many of those folks are NOT the business guys who will benefit from a $200 nite at the pool table, or steak dinner, or a 4 nite stay in a cabin.

Frankly there are tons of ways to gain the monies needed to groom and maintain trails. Just like there are ways to collect from those who use the roads in Chitown....with those godforsaken toll booths....which Michigan up until now at least, has not seen a need to duplicate. We still can fix the roads, but we use other methodology to collect the funds.

Adding a 1/4 tax on beer at the bar, or motel room, or even sleds sold in Michigan won't kill anyone, and will help support the tourist trade which will in turn, keep the establishments open because they are relatively cheap places to visit and have fun....4 seasons. Divvy up that money where it will do the most good and you help those businesses stay open, year around, and keep Michigan in the tourist businesses, which is exactly what those trails are designed for in the first place.

When you buy gas for your boat at a marina, you are paying a special tax that helps to build marinas all over the country. Yep, it costs more but as long as it doesn''t get robbed by someone needed school loans or other handmedowns....it is a good thing and won't put the load on just one place or thing.

Right now it is a set fee and use tax....purely designed to hit everyone exactly the same who owns and wants to use their sled in Michigan. We could spread that fee out a bit and give one time use people a break. What about those who use the trails every weekend all year long. Are they really paying their fair share compared to the guy headed up one time and paying the same fee? Seems not only unrealistic, but completely unfair...and that is what this thread is about.

We all know that there are businesses who are benefiting from the flow of tourist traffic who don't do a darn thing. Others are shouldering the load...It isn't evenly spread is it?

I think it should be spread out collected from all beneficiaries and keep a business like mind on who to not only bring the tourists, but to keep them through 4 seasons....and upping the fee to $45 won't be helping that process...as many have pointed out.

 

[Admin]

There are actually a lot of communities in the UP and N. WI that have a room surcharge that goes to a tourism board, or chamber of commerce or other type of organization that then uses that money to try and bring in more visitors. Be it in the form of advertising, attending trade shows or even in some cases, subsidizing trail maintenance. So your idea is a good one and it already being used in many tourist areas. Even in the big cities.

-John

 

[dcsnomo]

Boon-
I think the issue here is that people get real pizzy when their government passes general taxes to support specific industry. Let me 'splain a bit-

A room tax, as John mentioned, is a tax on visitors (residents don't stay in hotels, generally) and is used by tourism agencies to promote the area.

A toll on the IL tollway is a fee (tax) on drivers who use the tollway, and is used to operate the tollway. People who don't use the tollway never pay the fee.

A tax on boat gas is only paid by boaters...and so on, I know you get it.

Governments are really tough on passing general taxes, like $.25 a drink to support snowmobiling, because EVERYBODY who drinks pays it, regardless of whether they snowmobile or not.

While we, as the users, like the idea of spreading our costs over a greater base, the public gets really pizzy about it, which is why, at least in WI, room tax is very tightly controlled by the state as to the rules.

User fees support user activities, unless you are an NFL owner and can get the general populace to pay for your stadium.

Not saying your idea is bad, as I would love to have college drinkers in Ann Arbor paying for my trails, but generally the governments won't do that.

So, the people who pay the tab for snowmobiling are snowmobilers, and the only way to differentiate us from the general populace is to tax the snowmobile. there are no other differentiating characteristics other than the dumb grin on our face and the pasty crumbs on our bibs!

 

[booondocker]

Well, actually, Michigan already taxes and spends for tourism, which for one example is the "Pure Michigan" campaign. If you pay income tax in Michigan, you are supporting tourist dollars even though you are not a tourist. While it is a very small portion, few complain about it because it brings business to Michigan (at least in theory) and that trickles back down into income from purchases.

This is NOT a use tax, which the examples you use are more than less.

My point is that funding can come in various ways, if spread out is almost a nuisance, but vital for whatever you are funding.

In reality, a variable fee such as a trail permit that covers one month for say $10 would be very attractive and would not hit anyone in the pocket very hard, and the balance could come from some fractional fee charged by those who do lodging, and sell spirit beverages and perhaps food establishments within a range of any snomo trails. Nobody would complain about a dime charge for snowmobile trail upkeep and surely would not keep anyone from buying a beer.

Then even greater state of the art equipment could be used, and since the funding would NOT be limited to stickers sold in one year (which could go up or down depending upon the economy, or where the snow is) bring more uniform income, and everyone from the farmer to the plumber would bear a bit of the burden but so small nobody would kick about it.

If you live and sled in Michigan all year, the monthly sticker could be purchased in a group at discount at the beginning of the year much like Ontario does. This give a more fair spread of the expense, and still would not discourage those who say, "enough is enough".

 

[polarisrider1]

Griping about costs going up is like b*tching about the weather. You can't control it.

Well, actually, Michigan already taxes and spends for tourism, which for one example is the "Pure Michigan" campaign. If you pay income tax in Michigan, you are supporting tourist dollars even though you are not a tourist. While it is a very small portion, few complain about it because it brings business to Michigan (at least in theory) and that trickles back down into income from purchases.

This is NOT a use tax, which the examples you use are more than less.

My point is that funding can come in various ways, if spread out is almost a nuisance, but vital for whatever you are funding.

In reality, a variable fee such as a trail permit that covers one month for say $10 would be very attractive and would not hit anyone in the pocket very hard, and the balance could come from some fractional fee charged by those who do lodging, and sell spirit beverages and perhaps food establishments within a range of any snomo trails. Nobody would complain about a dime charge for snowmobile trail upkeep and surely would not keep anyone from buying a beer.

Then even greater state of the art equipment could be used, and since the funding would NOT be limited to stickers sold in one year (which could go up or down depending upon the economy, or where the snow is) bring more uniform income, and everyone from the farmer to the plumber would bear a bit of the burden but so small nobody would kick about it.

If you live and sled in Michigan all year, the monthly sticker could be purchased in a group at discount at the beginning of the year much like Ontario does. This give a more fair spread of the expense, and still would not discourage those who say, "enough is enough".

We as snowmobilers in Michigan don't trust the general fund to support our trails. It was tried and did not work. Our money for the trails is designated by legislation with the pay to play permit setup we have.

 

[dcsnomo]

Boon-
Bringing outside tourism money to MI is "for the common good", therefore it is supported by taxes because it has a great ROI. But, once you go to MI you pay user fees based upon what you use. Put your boat in a municipal marina in Grand Haven and you pay to offset the cost of the marina. Going for a walk in a state park requires a park permit. Putting a sled on a trail requires a trail permit.

The difference between these activities and standing on Jefferson Ave staring at the RenCen for free is that these activities have direct costs for development and maintenance, and these direct costs are not "for the common good". They are for specific users with specific interests. You do not tax the general public, who may not use these facilities, for their maintenance and upkeep. You charge the users for whom the facilities were built.

Think of it as an ala carte menu of activities. We advertise to get you here but you pay for what you use.

Tourism is a great economic engine to these areas (like mine). But, speaking from experience, non facility using residents get real cranky when you ask them to pay for the facilities the tourists will use and they will not. Therefore, users pay.

While I supported the new $6.5MM marina in Egg Harbor (whose capital costs will never be offset by user fees) I will vote against any proposal to add a tax to the residents (like ten cents a drink) to operate and maintain the facility. That is the function of slip fees.

I chuckled as I re-read my post, because clearly my opinion is that of a village president/trustee who has had this opinion beaten into his head by residents over the last 8 years!

Later, Boon!

 

[polarisrider1]

Egg Harbor is getting a new Marina? I got to check it out!!!! We visit Door County by boat every other year. Fish Creek Is a main stop at the Alibi dock. Fish boil and Door County Cherry pie, Nuff said, Goats on the roof, in Sister Bay, Deaths door (ran it 3 times feeling lucky) Washington Island, and My favorite Rowleys bay with the Wagon trail Resort. I hold the record for largest boat in their Marina. all this to say, Priceless and memories made. Cost ??? don't remember. Point is the marinas have slip fees and I pay them to receive the product Door County offers. Shopping, Boating, sight seeing, great food, serinity, etc. same with the Trail permits. You don't expect a theme Park to let you in for free either.

If I was a hotel/motel in the UP I would have trail permits built in the stay as maybe a snowmobilers pkg. if one chooses to stay say say like 3days and permit is 1/2 price. 5 days 1 permit would be covered. Build it in the price, that may take care of the whiners. If all the motel owners could get together on this It may work as a marketing tool. same like offering indoor heated storage for sleds, etc. I have been to places that do both of these already.

 

[Banks93]

If Egg Harbor or Door County decided to raise the slip prices 80% in the next two years you would still go there? How many other people would?

 

[polarisrider1]

If Egg Harbor or Door County decided to raise the slip prices 80% in the next two years you would still go there? How many other people would?

If the quailty is raised and services are raised and the prices for slips isn't that bad right now. I think I would. I would grumble just like the trail permit payers at first, wait, I am a trail permit buyer and I ride "Off trail" and mainly out of state. I guess I accept that as a cost of "doing business" as a snowmobiler. This past season I bought permits for 4 states and rode 3 of them once and Michigan twice. Price of entry was known. It is how it works. pay to play. Know we could all take up snow shoeing or cross country skiing on the trail system and not pay for a permit. It is your choice.