Recreation User Fees-
A Much Maligned Subject

by James E. Bossi

Discussions on recreation user fees are not new. There has been a continuing dialogue on this subject dating back to the early 1900's when fees were charged for automobile permits at a number of national parks. There was then a general feeling that the entire National Park System should be selfsupporting. During Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, fee collection was given heavy emphasis. Nearly all of the national parks and monuments required a fee in the early 40's.

The "fees and charges act" of 1951 stated that it was the sense of Congress that all Federal agencies should prescribe fees and charges which would make services rendered to special beneficiaries selfsustaining to the fullest extent possible.

Further support for fees and charges came from President John F. Kennedy, who advocated government-wide recreation fee collection. In his endorsement of the original Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation, he expressed the opinion, "It is reasonable and in the public interest that needed improvement and expansion of outdoor recreation opportunities be financed largely on a pay-as-you-go basis from the direct beneficiaries-the users of Federal recreation lands and waters."

With all of the seeming support for fees it seems like it would be easy to install a fee system. NOT SO! The legislative history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act reveals long, heated debates concerning the details of administering the policy of collecting fees. The "public" in general is

very supportive of the user pay concept. However, when it comes to addressing specifics, it seems that "nobody likes to have their own oxes gored."

At the present time, there are 7 Federal agencies that charge recreation fees to some extent. The National Park System and the national recreation areas administered by the Forest Service are the only units where admission fees are authorized. Even there, the National Park System may not add additional fee-charging units or increase rates above the 1979 level. There are also many specific services and facilities which must be furnished at recreation sites prior to becoming eligible as charge sites under the law. Fees cannot be charged for use of picnic facilities or boat ramps for example. Potable water and road access, as well as other specific services must be provided at charge campgrounds. Also, the 1981 appropriations act contained language which eliminated the LWCF Act provision that fees collected would be available for appropriation back to the agencies which collected them.

Because of the present restrictions in the LWCF Act it is very difficult to design an efficient fee collection system at most national

forest campground complexes.

Campers cannot be charged on a vehicle basis and centralized charge stations are extremely difficult to operate because of the restrictions on charging for certain types of facilities. If for no other reason, additional legislative authority is necessary if we are to design a fair, efficient fee system.

It has become increasingly expensive to provide the high quality public recreation areas and facilities which Americans expect. In fiscal year 1983, the cost of operating and maintaining the recreation resource on national forests totaled $167 million while fees generated only $27.8 million in revenues.

This $27.8 million included $11.3 million in use fees collected largely from campgrounds, and $16.5 million collected from recreation special uses such as ski resorts, and outfitters and guide activities. Use of recreation areas and facilities and the costs of providing them have grown at a greater rate than has the funding available for maintaining, refurbishing, and improving those areas and facilities. Current economic and budgetary realities limit our ability to meet recreation funding demands.

We are rapidly losing ground in the battle to keep facilities in the national forests operational. For many years, maintenance and rehabilitation of facilities necessary to protect the investment have been deferred while the limited funding available has been used for emergency measures just to keep the site open for public use. Most everyone recognizes that this "bailing wire" approach is short-sighted management. Over the past 5 years the deferred maintenance needs of national forest recreation facilities have increased from $133 million to $294 million.

The Forest Service has made every effort to stretch available funding as far as possible to keep sites open for public use. These efforts include innovations such as "pack-your-own-trash" programs and heavy reliance on volunteer assistance. However, the funding needs have continued to mount.

The Secretary of Agriculture has transmitted legislation to Congress which would expand the authority to charge for certain sites and facilities in the national forests and provide for the fee receipts to be returned for operation and maintenance of the recreation facilities. If this proposed legislation were enacted, the Forest Service could increase recreation receipts to $52 million. This would still fall far short of covering the estimated

$167 million in recreation related costs, but would help immensely. The Forest Service is continuing to work with user groups to further develop an admission fee proposal.

One of the problems in gaining acceptance for admission fees to national forests is the connotation which the term "admission fee" carries. Most people think immediately that an admission fee for national forest lands is a fee required just for entering or setting foot on lands they already own. This is heavily resented, especially by users who live adjacent or near these lands and have always used them free of charge.

Actually the intent of the entrance fee is not merely to charge users to enter public lands, but to charge users for the services and facilities necessary to accommodate the use. In other words, the term "admission fee" as used by the Forest Service would entitle visitors to enjoy basic services and facilities necessary for their health and safety and protection of the

resource.

These services and facilities are not necessarily tied to any one particular site. (A "user fee" is tied more directly to the use of a particular site or facility such as a campground or boat ramp.) Because it costs the managing agency to provide for these general forest environment recreation op

portunities-sometimes referred to as dispersed opportunities-the dispersed user, as well as users of more highly developed sites and facilities, should help bear these management costs. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has led to confusion by placing admission fees, user fees, and permit fees into separate categories. Maybe we should forget the terms "user fees," "permit fees" and "admission fees" and talk in terms of a recreation "service" fee.

Service Fee

One consistent proposal made by user groups is that we should have one Federal approach toward recreation fees. Much discussion has centered around waiting for a new Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) to examine the recreation fee issue and make recommendations. While Federal recreation fees should be consistent from one agency to another, we simply cannot wait any longer to get broad recreation fees off the ground. As mentioned earlier, there has been longstanding support and direction for recreation fees. The original ORRRC report in 1962 contained the following recommendation:

"Public agencies should adopt a system of user fees designed to re

How to Establish a Price For Park and Recreation Services

by John L. Crompton

The approach to establishing a price discussed in this article consists of three stages. These are illustrated in Figure 1. Stage 1 requires an agency to determine what proportion of the costs incurred in delivering a service should be recovered from direct pricing. Stage 2 recognizes that a service's price has to be perceived as reasonable by potential client groups or they will either refuse to pay and/or will vigorously protest through the political process. Using surveys to determine the going rate charged for similar services by other agencies and/or the commercial sector may lead to the costbased price devised in Stage 1 being adjusted downwards to ensure that it is perceived as "reasonable." In Stage 3 the appropriateness of varying this price for some user groups or in specified contexts is considered.

STAGE 1: Determine the Proportion of Costs Which

the Price Should Recover

The Critical Role of
Cost Accounting

A determination of the proportion of costs which a price is intended to recover is predicated on the assumption that an agency knows the cost of delivering the service. Unfortunately, current accounting systems in many park ard recreation agencies are not structured to capture and report cost data for each specific service delivered. They are designed only to provide expenditure information and appropriation control because

statement of the diverse and perhaps substantial financial resources necessary to support each service delivered.

If there is resistance to a formal cost accounting system then cost finding, which is a less rigorous approach, may be adopted. Cost finding is a less formal method of cost estimation which uses available financial data, or finds costs from budget details, the budgetary accounting system, analysis of detailed transactions (such as payroll records, invoices and contracts) and interviews with staff.

These data are collected, assembled on worksheets and analyzed to determine individual service delivery costs.2

It is rare for an agency's accounting system to provide the complete cost information essential to intelligently determine an appropriate price. In most instances cost finding rather than cost accounting has to be used. This situation exists because in the past there was no incentive to develop an elaborate cost accounting system since prices were infrequent and nominal, tax supported budgets were expanding so no trade-off decisions between services were necessary, and the relative cost efficiency of alternative delivery methods such as contracting out was not a concern.

Increasingly in the future a cost accounting system is likely to be recognized as an essential management tool. Without such data opponents of pricing decisions can justifiably argue that they are arbitrary.