You are here

Yosemite National Park Concession Prospectus Includes Significant Lodging Changes

Share
Alternate Text
Accommodations in Curry Village will change with the next concessions contract/David and Kay Scott

The recently issued prospectus for operation of the majority of Yosemite National Park'™s concession facilities includes several significant changes related to the park'™s lodging. Lodging, a major revenue generator for the winning bidder (and the National Park Service), is expected to generate from $52-$57 million in 2016, the year the new lease kicks in. This is approximately twice the amount the concessionaire is expected to generate in food and beverage sales during the same year. Retail sales generate approximately the same revenue as food and beverage. The new contract will be for 15 years with a beginning date of March 1, 2016.

The most significant lodging change is to occur at Curry Village, where the Park Service is planning to replace 52 canvas tents with cabins that include bathrooms. This will reduce the number of tent cabins at Curry to 351 and increase the number of cabins with bathrooms to 98. Curry also has 14 cabins without bathrooms and 18 motel-type rooms.

The prospectus also calls for removing 34 tent cabins (these are duplex units, meaning 17 structures would be removed) at Housekeeping Camp, leaving 232 of these units. In the High Sierra Camps, half the 22 tents at Merced Lake and four beds at Glen Aulin are to be removed.

The prospectus includes an especially stiff franchise fee of 8.6 percent of the concessionaire'™s annual gross revenues. Assuming the new cabins at Curry Village are completed on schedule before the end of the contract'™s seventh year, the franchise fee will increase by an additional six-tenths of 1 percent, resulting in a fee of over 9 percent. This compares with NPS fees of 4 percent at Mesa Verde and Sequoia/Kings Canyon national parks, 6 percent at Mount Rainier National Park, and 1 percent at Glacier Bay National Park.

In addition to a 9.2 percent franchise fee, the concessionaire is to pay an annual 2 percent repair-and-maintenance fee. Adding the California sales tax of 7.5 percent, a Mariposa County sales tax of .5 percent, a Mariposa County Transient Occupancy Tax of 10 percent, and a Mariposa County Tourism Business Improvement District Assessment of 1 percent, results in a guest at Yosemite Lodge paying $240 for a room (the price listed on the DNC site for an October stay), $27 of which represents NPS fees, plus another $45 in various sales taxes. Thus, a family staying in Yosemite Lodge will be paying over $70 a night in fees and taxes. An Ahwahnee stay would entail well over $100 per night in fees and taxes.

While the park'™s main concession facilities are in Yosemite Valley, the prospectus also covers concession operations at Badger Pass, Crane Flat, Glacier Point, Tuolumne Meadows, Wawona, White Wolf, and the High Sierra Camps. According to the NPS prospectus, each location 'œ'¦. presents unique opportunities and challenges'¦.'

Comments

I will revisit a question I raised two weeks ago:

But were national parks intended to operate as profit centers with no ceiling, or as a public commons? Companies shouldn't have to operate at a loss, but what ceiling should be kept within sight in a park?

And really, EC, there are many, many folks who for a wide variety of physical reasons can't sleep on the ground in a tent. It doesn't always have to deal with how much or how little they can move around.

And it also doesn't always have anything to do with how much or how little an individual has taken care of themselves. Accidents happen that greatly restrict an individual's abilities.

This isn't about asking the world to alter its course. This is about the national parks as a public commons supported by our tax dollars and whether they are affordable to those taxpayers.


I would not pay $240 to stay in a cabin in Yosemite, but apparently, there are plenty of people who will, although I will go to Ahwahnee at least once in my lifetime.  That's what the market will bear.  If one really wants to lower the cost of cabins in Yosemite, the only real solution would be to build a lot more of them to bring the supply in line with the current demand, which probably would not really fly these days.  So, there we have it: a good in high demand and restricted supply.  Of course, there's always the solution of going somewhere else.  Plenty of public land to hike on.


I disagree with you on that

You can disagree all you want but if it weren't the case, why would the NPS be outsourcing?  If a non-profit could operate at a lower cost and provide higher returns to the NPS, why would anyone in the NPS even consider outsourcing?


And really, EC, there are many, many folks who for a wide variety of physical reasons can't sleep on the ground in a tent.

Then use a cot.  As I said before, there are many things I can't do.  I don't expect the world to change its course to accomodate me. 


EC, there's a definite lack of compassion in your response.

Beyond that, here's an interesting point from a Forbes article:

Hence, to ask that the government be run like a business is tantamount to asking that the government turn a profit. The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/10/05/government-vs-business/

Again, I have to ask, were national parks intended to operate as profit centers with no ceiling, or as a public commons? Companies shouldn't have to operate at a loss, but what ceiling should be kept within sight in a park?

Your avoidance of this question, twice now, seems to indicate you believe the parks shouldn't be a public commons and that companies should be able to charge whatever the market bears.


Your avoidance of this question, twice now,

I believe I answered this when you first poised the question but I will answer again. I believe the parks should be operated to provide the best experience at the lowest cost.  I believe a competitive bidding process accomplishes that goal.  If accomodations can command multi hundred dollar nightly price tags and those dollars fund other operations, I see no problem.  I do believe there should be an effort to provide lower cost facilities - i.e frontcountry and backcountry campgrounds but I see no "right" for someone to get a discounted price on a high end room just because it is located in a park.

EDIT   My prior response when the orginal question was posed:

Kurt, if you are talking about basic access to the park then there may be some rationale for a "ceiling". Perhaps rates could be set as we do with public utilities, but then we probably would not have the most efficient of operations.

At $80 for unlimited access, $5 for a back country campground and $20 for an rv/tent site, I don't believe we are pricing anyone out of the Parks nor is anyone making unconscionable profits.

When it comes to luxury accomodations in the park - the first question might be why are they there. After that, I would have to ask why should anyone have any more right to a luxury accomodation in a Park then in Hawaii or Martha's Vineyard or Vegas.


Kurt,

The main issue here, at least for Yosemite, is that more people want to enjoy it than the park can accomodate.  The Ahwahnee hotel is basically booked year round.  The camping spots all get booked months in advance as soon as they become available for reservation.  So, we can either let money regulate the demand, since we can't build anymore supply (or can we? :) ).  Or we can force prices to be lower than today, and have people frustrated because they can get in due to everything being booked way in advance.  Either way, it won't please everybody.

The government employees on this site don't like the idea of market based pricing because that reeks too much of pricing out the poorest (although I doubt that a lot of actually poor folks do the trip to Yosemite anyhow). Obviously, I think that market pricing is the best solution.  Actually, it'd be interesting to have the NPS run an auction on a few campsites during the high season to see what people are really willing to pay to camp in Yosemite.  


There is one other issue at work in the question of camping vs. using "indoor" lodging. Air travel may be a hassle these days, but visitors who are making a cross-country (or international) trip to visit places like Yosemite often find time constraints and costs make it impractical to drive. It's simply not feasible for most air travelers to haul the amount of camping gear needed for a reasonably comfortable stay (such as ec's suggested cot)... and thus they end up paying for a room vs. a campsite.

In such cases, it's unfortunate there aren't more affordable options in places like Yosemite. There's something to be said for the ability to be stay within just a few minutes of prime views in Yosemite Valley at sunrise or sunset, but you'll pay dearly for that option, unless you camp.

At some parks, the high prices charged by concessioners do help nearby local businesses. On a recent trip to Glacier and Yellowstone, we opted to stay in small, family-run lodgings just outside the park, and were happier with both the price and the product.

Our conversation with several local proprieters also reminded us of the reality of doing business in areas such as Glacier with very short tourist seasons: they have only about two months to earn the bulk of their income for the entire year, and that does impact the price of everything from lodging to meals.


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.