You are here

Concessionaires Push Point That National Park Service Lacks Business Savvy

Share
Congressional hearing on National Park Service innovation

Witnesses at a hearing on how the National Park Service can improve its business practices offered a wide range of suggestions.

Today's National Park Service lacks business savvy, from trying to micro-manage businesses in the parks to being slow to respond to visitor desires and services, a Congressional subcommittee was told by business leaders whose companies operate in the National Park System.

One after another told the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands that changing business practices, and asking park visitors to pay more for services, will help reduce the Park Service's $11.5 billion maintenance backlog while providing visitors a better experience.

“The visitor services we provide in national parks are often inhibited by NPS policies which limit visitor experiences and reduce our payments, called franchise fees, to the agency," Derrick Crandall, counselor to the National Park Hospitality Association, told the subcommittee chaired by Rep. Tom McClintock of California.

“We are confident that increases in visitor services, including lengthening operating hours at units like Alcatraz and Statue of Liberty, adding appropriate services and allowing dynamic pricing of services, could increase franchise fees to the NPS by 50 percent within three years," Mr. Crandall added.

The hearing was one of two Thursday that examined how the Park Service does business. The other, held an hour earlier, delved into contracts the Park Service utilizes in managing its lodging, dining, and other visitor services.

While the committees' Republican leadership made it clear that solving the Park Service's budgetary problems would have to be accomplished without higher appropriations, Craig Obey of the National Parks Conservation Association told the representatives that Congress must take a greater fiduciary interest in the National Park System.

"Our national parks are investments worth preserving. Yet, for decades now, successive congresses and administrations have put park resources at risk through underinvestment. Operations funding for the National Park Service is down 7 percent ($178 million) in today’s dollars from where it was only five years ago, which has led to a reduction in rangers and other staff to educate visitors and protect resources," Mr. Obey, NPCA's senior vice president for government affairs, said in his written comments. "In addition, the National Park Service’s construction budget has declined by 62 percent ($230 million) over the last decade in today’s dollars. Between these reductions and insufficient investment on the transportation side, it’s no wonder that the deferred maintenance backlog has grown to $11.5 billion."

To bridge that gap, he urged the committee members to support extension of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which generates nearly $200 million annually for parks through user fess, to endorse President Obama's 2016 budget that would boost the Park Service's funding for both operations and construction accounts, create an endowment fund for the parks, authorize the Centennial Challenge program that would match federal dollars with private philanthropy, support more highway funding to address infrastructure needs across the park system, and make it possible for the Park Service to utilize leasing of historic structures more often to preserve those structures.

From the concessionaires' viewpoint, points they made ranged from allowing longer leases to extending operating seasons in some parks. But many times the way the Park Service manages its operations were used to drive points home.

“No other agency that we work with micro-manages us to the level of the National Park Service . . . The price-approval process within the NPS is cumbersome and slow. . . Small operators are forced to spend disproportionate dollars to respond to prospectuses that are better suited to bigger companies doing business in many national parks. . . The NPS has lost sight in recent RFPs of the capital demands put upon the concessioner compared to the length of contracts.” -- Pamela Koeberer Pitts, secretary, The California Parks Company.

“In looking toward the future, we hope that the National Park Service will become even more receptive to increasing visitor service where it is needed, and where it makes sense, in a timely manner while at the same time, always protecting the National Parks’ natural and cultural resources. Prospectuses and contracts could be improved by giving concessioners a credit of some sort or other innovative rewards for making capital investments . . . Longer contracts would also allow concessioners to make larger capital investments that could be recovered by the end of the concession contract. And, finally, rewarding excellent concessioners in some way for being outstanding partners with the National Park Service and for providing outstanding visitor services . . . would help to solidify longevity and stability for good concessioners." -- John King, regional vice president, Forever Resorts.

“A system designed to reward those that do provide excellence in concession operations would benefit both incumbent concessioners as well as the National Park Service. Rather than challenging ourselves to innovate every time a concession contract comes up, it would encourage constant innovation and excellence in the performance of a contract. ... The current process lacks transparency and doesn’t allow unsuccessful bidders to understand their perceived shortcomings. This lack of transparency also leads to mistrust of the process, whether real or perceived.” -- Alex Klein - vice president and general manager, Grand Teton Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company.

“Stagnant park visitation reflects more leisure choices today but is also the result of reduced visitor activity choices – potential visitors are choosing other destinations. There are fewer park campsites, fewer lodging rooms, fewer restaurant seats, fewer ranger-led walks, fewer tours and outings. Visitor services eliminated by NPS have not been offset by new outdoor activities and special events.” “NPS is pursuing an unsustainable strategy of forcing higher payments by concessioners to the agency while simultaneously reducing business opportunities.” -- Terry MacRae - Hornblower Cruises; chairman, National Park Hospitality Association.

“[W]e quickly discovered that many more guests wanted to visit the Dry Tortugas than we were allowed to take. The market had spoken – visitors wanted to experience the Dry Tortugas National Park and preferred our boat over other options... After more than 20 months, the NPS finally agreed to the increase… The torturous path of paperwork between the local park and the region and the national office was costly to all parties and was stressful to the relationship between our company and NPS…What did not appear to gain consideration was the 10,000+ potential park visitors that could have experienced Dry Tortugas during this period, or the revenue loss to NPS of $250,000 or more. ...With the substantial and ongoing budgetary restraints that the NPS is facing, it seems to me that the NPS can, with little effort, recover a larger portion of the costs of its many excellent programs from those directly benefiting from those programs. Recreation and tourism are a trillion dollar industry, and national parks are widely regarded as a top asset of this industry.” -- Chris Belland - CEO, Historic Tours of America.

Comments

I find it distressing that considering the importance of the role of Concessions in the history of the NPS that we do not have a comprehensive administrative history on the subject. Concessions have played an important and vital role in the history of our national parks and an administrative history of the subject is long overdue.

Harry Butowsky


Kurt - couldn't "dynamic" also mean reducing prices? If their costs vary shouldn't they be able to vary their prices accordingly? But lets get to the root of it. Megaera expects the concessionaires to sell at a loss so the non "rich" can get their entitlement.

My suggestion would be to unlock the pricing but don't grant a monopoly on the concessions. Have multiple operators compete with one another. That will keep pricing in check and provide the best services for the public.


EC, I'm curious to learn more about "dynamic pricing," but my guess is that it calls for higher prices, especially when that phrase is followed by "could increase franchise fees to the NPS by 50 percent within three years."

50 percent is a fairly large jump in three years, don't you think?

I'll see if Derrick can share more details. He reads the Traveler, so perhaps he could weigh in on this thread. 

As for "sell at a loss" and "don't grant a monopoly," the first can't be determined unless the concessionaires opened their books to the public. As for monopolies, bidding is open to all-comers. It's just a matter of who can handle the task, both logistically and physically.


Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. Three flush facilities are open in the winter as are eight vault toilets and many, many frost free hydrants. Maybe you should work to get your "facts" straight about SNP


I'm reminded of the time that the cigarette company officals stood and lied before congress to say that tobacco wasn't deadly.
Concessionaires are the problem in the NPS. THeir dirty money and Jarvis non stop poor mouthing are what made this mess. Giving them the keys to the NPS is like like giving a teenager whisky and car keys. FLREA is a criminal law that allows the NPS to perpetuate all sorts of fee abuses. But I'm sure it suits the concessionaires monied agendas. It certainly suits Jarvis.


"especially when that phrase is followed by "could increase franchise fees to the NPS by 50 percent within three years."

Of course the 50% number was not exclusive to pricing. It included longer opening times and additional services as well. Further, lowering prices could be more than made up for with higher volume thereby expanding franchise fees as well. Your implication that prices would rise 50% in three years is well off the mark.

"As for monopolies, bidding is open to all-comers."

Yes, but once the bidding is over, the winner has a monopoly. When there is a governmental granted monopoly then price setting by the governmental entity is appropriate even if inefficient. But if a natural monopoly doesn't exist, as I believe should be the case in the NPS, then competition will control pricing and the market will be far more efficient. Let Xanterra run Grant and Aramark run Fishing Bridge. Word will get out quickly who has the better prices and services.


Kurt, or who has the inside political tract. I am beginning to be a bit of a broken record, but the book "YOUR YOSEMITE" written by a former superintendent of that Park who also has a very impressive resume both in non-profits, etc. will help EC greatly as it deals with many of the points he is making. EC, you may not agree with all that is in the book, but it is excellent, it goes into grate detail with the history of the park, the trail maintenance, rescue, fire, interpretation chapters are great reads, it is very good. There is much on the history of concessions in Yosemite, perhaps the most extensive and profitable of concessions inside a major park. It will answer many of the questions you pose on this listserve. Mr. Binnewies was an excellent Park supertintendent, keenly intelligent, very aware of the issues we are discussing now. A footnote, his son is the current sheriff of the county I reside in, he has done an excellent job, so much so, he was unopposed in his last election.


The National Park Service is in the 'business' of protecting the natural, historic, and cultural aspects of all our national treasures in its charge. Limiting visitation or services, for any variety of reasons, across the park system, is essential for preserving these places. This, in no way limits "guest experiences"; it actually guarantees opportunities for education and enjoyment for future generations. Any concessionaire who has the privilege of operating in the national parks not only needs to understand this, but make it their number one priority as well.

In my many years of visiting the National Parks across this country, never once did the actions of the park service, or its staff, ever let me down. My only disappointments have been experiences with concessionaires. I've consistently experienced lousy meals and bad service in restaurants, visited untidy rooms or facilities, and have met several less than friendly (even rude) employees in retail venues. My most recent disappointment was participating in a guided tour offered by Xanterra, with a guide who blatantly ignored park regulations regarding wildlife and safety.

Concessionaires need to address their own shortcomings in the services that they offer before pointing fingers or making demands. As well as humble themselves in the realization that the National Parks DO NOT belong to them.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.