Passport to Parks? More Like Passport to Perks

What began as a passport to the outdoors has turned into a backdoor subsidy for public-sector pensions. 

State officials sold the Passport to Parks fee — quietly tacked onto every noncommercial vehicle registration — as a bargain: a few dollars a year in exchange for free parking, cleaner trails, better-maintained facilities, and expanded access to over 100 state parks, beaches, campgrounds, and nature centers. 

As Gov. Dannel Malloy put it at the time: “Our state parks are one of our most valuable resources, providing recreation and enjoyment to families across our state and serving as an important economic engine. Adopting the Passport to Parks system will help ensure that our state parks remain an attractive destination and continue adding to the quality of life and natural beauty we enjoy in our state.” 

It was a great sales pitch. But state budget documents tell a very different story. 

According to state financial records, Connecticut collected $26.6 million in Passport to Parks revenue in Fiscal Year 2024. Of that, more than $6.2 million went straight into the State Employees Retirement System (SERS). In total, over $7.7 million was spent on “Fringe” benefits — a catch-all category that includes pensions, health insurance, FICA taxes, and other employee perks that have little to do with clearing trails or staffing campgrounds. 

The fund also spent another $7.7 million on “Other Expenses” — a broad category that includes both basic park operations, like electricity and waste removal, and less visible overhead, such as office software, telecom services, and leased vehicles.  

While some of these costs are necessary to keep parks functional, they highlight how little of the fund is tied to improvements the public can actually see. Taken together, spending on fringe benefits and other operational expenses totaled more than $15.4 million—nearly 60 percent of all Passport to the Parks revenue. 

Meanwhile, seasonal workers — lifeguards, groundskeepers, and part-time staff who actually keep the parks running — received just $7.3 million, or roughly 27 percent of the fund’s spending. This is less than what was allocated for pensions and fringe benefits. 

In other words: Connecticut drivers were told they were paying to restore and maintain parks. In reality, they were helping to fill fiscal gaps in the state retirement system.  

When the program launched in 2018 under Gov. Malloy, it was hailed as a win for both nature lovers and state government. Press releases bragged about reopening closed campgrounds and extending museum hours. Lawmakers touted the fee as a way to “allow for more staffing and hours of operation for more fun and entertainment.” 

The Friends of Connecticut State Parks even praised the program for making park budgets “80% reliable from year to year” while avoiding the chaos of annual funding battles. But they likely didn’t anticipate how quickly that “reliable funding” would become a reliable ATM for Connecticut’s bloated benefits structure. 

Even worse, the fee has recently gone up. As of July 1, 2025, the fee was increased from $15 to $24 per three-year vehicle registration — a 60% hike. State officials say this will generate an extra $10.5 million for park improvements, but if past spending patterns are any indication, much of it will vanish into the same sinkhole of pension and overhead costs. 

To be clear, the parks do need funding. Yes, the program has brought some improvements: fewer lines at entrances, more access to shoreline parks, and expanded hours at a handful of nature centers. But the idea that every dollar is going toward nature is pure fiction. This isn’t about conservation; it’s about compensation. 

The public was initially led to believe that this fee would safeguard access to natural resources. However, it has instead been used to financially support a state workforce that receives some of the most generous benefits in the country. 

The math doesn’t lie. Connecticut’s pension system has been underfunded for decades due to years of skipped payments, overly optimistic investment assumptions, and collective bargaining agreements that locked in costly long-term obligations. This financial pressure has turned programs like Passport to Parks into convenient funding sources, with dollars quietly diverted to help chip away at pension debt. 

The issue isn’t whether parks cost money to operate — it’s that a fund created specifically to support parks is being used to prop up the state’s pension system. That’s not what the public was told, and it’s not what the law intended. 

Pension liabilities should be allocated to the general budget, not diverted from the dedicated fund intended to enhance Connecticut’s trails, beaches, and public lands. To truly honor the original intent of the Passport to Parks program, policymakers must prohibit the use of these funds for fringe benefits. Until that change is made, your next hike is a reminder of the retiree it may be subsidizing.