The following explanations for propose new fee-demo legislation were offered by the American Recreation Coalition at their Partners Outdoors X meeting in January, 2001.
k) Agencies covered under this program, except the National Park Service. may retain 75% of the receipts for recreation-related special use permits and concessioner payments, except for permits with terms of 30 years or more. Revenues may be used for permit administration and improved visitor services; otherwise these revenues are subject to the same provisions as recreation demonstration fees. Any holder of a recreation special use permit, authorization or concession agreement shall be exempt from agency cost-recovery programs and provisions.
Explanation:
Under the fee demonstration program, recreation-related receipts from individuals are available to the four agencies to pay for recreation program costs, including administration of permits. This amendment would allow a parallel retention of fees paid by permit holders, with receipts available to pay for permit administration and services and facilities benefiting visitors utilizing the services of outfitters, guides and other permit holders.
Issues:
1) Should 25% of the receipts from recreation-related special use permits and concessioner payments continue to be shared with local units of government, or should all receipts be retained (as is now the case with fee demo receipts)? Alternatively, the agencies might be allowed to retain all receipts and be allowed, or even encouraged, to initiate agreements with local governments for services and cooperative programs — from roads to S&R to law enforcement.
2) The final sentence is designed to exclude holders of recreation-related special use permits, authorizations and concession agreements from charges associated with environmental assessments/impact statements, general environmental monitoring and other administrative costs on the basis that such holders are non-exclusive users of the federal lands and therefore should not bear costs that are general land management functions of the agencies.
3) The National Park Service is excluded from this provision based upon recent enactment of new, agency-specific legislation covering concessions. Under this act, concessioner payments are retained by the agency and may be used to cover National Park Service administration costs.
(I) There is hereby established one new revolving fund each for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior which may be used for loans to recreation fee sites to upgrade facilities in advance of fee site implementation. Repayment of loans shall be made from collected fees or future appropriations.
Explanation:
Public resistance to new fee demo sites has often been highest where the recreation sites are in poor condition. As Representative ChenowethHage has pointed out, the public is normally accepting of fees for new services, and even for newly improved services, but is easily agitated when fees are levied for services and facilities that were once free and have declined in quality. The revolving funds would allow up-front capital investments; the costs would be repaid with fee revenue or subsequent appropriations, and thus could be used for another site.
Issues:
1) How large should the initial capitalization of the revolving funds be? Should there be only one fund, or one for each participating department, or one for each participating agency?
2) Should there be an additional earmarking of revenues to these revolving funds — for example, by recapturing a portion of the fee collections at those sites where collections exceed demonstrated needs, or general appropriations?
3) Could the fund be funded by capital improvement appropriations that are made unnecessary by substitution for private sector or state/local government funds — for example, a campground concession operator?
4) The Forest Service advises that they make substantial use of “working fund accounts” for vehicles and other expenses, purchasing goods and services and then repaying into this account from other line items. It suggests that this might be an option.
(m) Each agency covered by this provision may issue up to twenty recreation permits for periods of up to twenty years for campgrounds and other fee generating sites where the permittees agree to invest in capital improvements identified by the agency. Any funds appropriated by the Congress for capital improvements now accomplished with permitted funds may be retained by the agency to provide funding (1) to upgrade other sites proposed for the fee demonstration program and (2) to implement expanded interpretation and visitor services associated with the campground. Such funds shall be available for an additional two fiscal years.
Explanation:
Federal recreation budgets for the agencies covered by the fee demonstration program are not large enough to provide full-funding for current facility operations, eradication of deferred maintenance backlogs and construction of needed new and replacement facilities. Available funds can be “stretched” by allowing private sector investments to replace appropriated funds at developed recreation sites which generate revenues and are thus capable of repaying the private investor. The Forest Service has sought to initiate such a program for several years, but proponents have been hampered by a lack of incentive to the agency to take this step.
Issues:
1) Once projects are actually provided for in appropriations measures, is it really too late to solicit private sector investment?
2) If an agency obtains private investment for a project not yet receiving an appropriation, how can the 106th Congress provide an assurance that there will be a “reward” by a subsequent Congress?
3) What barriers exist to using “saved” money for other purposes?
4) How should “saved” money be allowed to be used? Should it be earmarked for deferred maintenance backlog? Should it only be available in the unit (district/forest/park) generating the savings?
5) Since the “saved” money will be used for new projects which may still require engineering and environmental work-ups, these funds should remain available for an additional period to allow wise expenditures. Is two FY appropriate?
6) Since field offices may not learn that they have capital investment funds until midway through a fiscal year, and since seeking alternative, private sector funding of the projects could delay bidding by 90-120 days, the capital funds for a project should be allowed to carry-over for an additional year if an agency elects to explore the private investment option.
Scott Silver, Executive Director,
Wild Wilderness
248 NW Wilmington Avenue, Bend OR 97701
Phone (541) 385-5261 E-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org