Subject: Hill Input on Rec Fee Demo
This is an important message from Dave Bull, our legislative affairs rep, regarding two Hill visits made in late November to gain input from staffers on key committees on the possible future of the recreation fee demo program. He will meet with Senate staffers next week. This is important input as we consider where we are headed with developing a nationally consistent fee program. I'll be meeting with the recreation directors in Tucson on 1/14 to discuss our strategy toward developing the program "sideboards" referred to by the staffers. It is time to fish or cut bait--we must make the tough decisions on moving from a broad test to national implementation. The regional fee demo managers will meet on this in April. In the meantime, we are pulling together all the research and input to date, an internal/external outreach plan, and we're preparing a contract to look at some financial/marketing aspects of the program so that we can have a firm foundation to proceed from.
Teri Cleeland
Program Leader,
Business Plans, Marketing, & Fees
US Forest Service Washington Office, RHWR, 4 central
201 14th St., SW
Washington, DC 20024
202-205-1169 (voice)
202-205-1145 (fax)
----------------------
Janet Lin, Mike Jones (both leg counsels with Interior), and I met with House Resources Committee staff and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee minority staff during the week of 11/26/01 to discuss options for replacing rec fee demonstration authority once the program expires at the end of FY '04.
Comments from the House Resources staffers included:
--No interest from the Democrats on Committee in pursuing replacement authority.
--Members do not favor fees for dispersed recreation activities, such as backcountry use or hiking.
--Concerned with "nickle and dime" effect or layering of fees. Use the Disneyland concept - one fee for all activities.
--Difficult for visitors to see how fees are being spent - signing, reports.
--Difficult for Congress to see how fees are spent. May need to have GAO review receipts and expenditures.
--Agencies might consider outside entity to review how fees are collected and how they are expended.
--Concerned with charging too much and limiting visitors.
--Fees should be spent first on reducing backlog. Need to update deferred maintenance and backlog lists.
--Need serious sideboards on where fees are collected and how they are spent.
--Fee receipts should be spent on implementing plans, not on planning.
--Don't build FTE's with fee program.
--Concentrate on interagency national pass rather than regional passes.
--Might consider permanent national parks fee legislation at this time but not FS.
--FS needs to get heat turned down in Ore, Wash, Id, and Calif before permanent authority will be considered.
--FS priority should be to put out "hotspots."
--Have foundations or other entities do your marketing--websites, 1-800 #.
--Use same criteria as in L&WCF for determining where appropriate to charge fees.
--Substantial contingent on D side think that public resources should be open and free.
--Don't create have and have-not forests and parks; look at spreading revenue on 50-40-10 split.
Comments from Senate Energy and Natural Resources minority staffers included:
--Don't have the votes to make fee program permanent.
--Use Disneyland model; charge once at the door.
--Fees for hiking, visitor centers, permittee customers will kill program.
--Need more cooperation between state, DOI, and FS; people don't know difference between agencies.
--Amending L&WCF Act for permanent authority will create budget problem (balanced budget act).
--Better to attach permanent language to approps bill.
--Need well defined criteria for where fee is appropriate and where it is not.
--Need standardized fee criteria. What defines difference between $15 and $20 fee?
--Do market analysis every couple of years to determine price.
--Everybody understands state boundary for hunting, fishing licensing. Use state boundaries for fees.
--Redefine Golden Eagle. Buffalo Pass for NP's; Golden Eagle for everything else.
--Goal should be to simplify program. Shouldn't have entrance fees in some areas and not in others.
--Read sign at Great Falls, Mt. VC; good example of why simplification is needed.
--Use database to send reminders to people that annual pass has expired.
--Need more examples like Idaho where state and feds are working together on collection and expenditure.
--May need legislative authority to work with states.
--Balance negative impact on payments to counties (25% fund) by fee sharing.
--Support 6 year sunset authority if FS gets serious sideboards on program by March.
--FS needs to understand that extension in '02 approps does not guarantee program will survive until 2004.