[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSION PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE INTERIOR
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-790 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
William McGrath, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director
Ryan Hambleton, Senior Professional Staff Member
Melissa Beaumont, Clerk
Subcommittee on the Interior
Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming, Chairman
Ken Buck, Colorado, Vice Chair Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Ranking Member
Blake Farenthold, Texas Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 23, 2015.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Ms. Lena McDowall, Chief Financial Officer, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Mr. Terry MacRae, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Hornblower, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Mr. Alex Klein, Vice President and General Manager, Grand Teton
Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Mr. Christopher C. Belland, Chief Executive Officer, Historic
Tours of America
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 27
APPENDIX
Statement by John Garder, Director of Budget and Appropriations
at the National Parks Conservation Association................. 44
Statement by David Woodside, President of the Acadia Corporation. 50
Statement by John King, Regional Vice President of Forever
Resorts........................................................ 53
Statement by Pamela Pitts, Secretary of the California Parks
Company........................................................ 55
Statement by Tim Rout, CEO of Dyno Ventures...................... 57
Statement of Forever Resorts..................................... 59
Statement of Gettysburg Tours and TRF Concession Specialists of
Florida........................................................ 62
Responses from NPS to questions for the record................... 63
MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSION PROGRAM
----------
Thursday, July 23, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Interior,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia M.
Lummis [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lummis, Gosar, Buck, Palmer, and
Lawrence.
Also Present: Representative Norton.
Mrs. Lummis. The Subcommittee on the Interior will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Well, good morning. We are so happy to have you. This
hearing is going to be forward-looking and informative and
interesting, and I am pleased you are here.
The Subcommittee on the Interior today will be examining
the concession program at the National Park Service. As we
approach next year's 100th anniversary of the National Park
Service, we are in an ideal position to look at how this
agency, which is custodian of our greatest natural resources,
is functioning.
Stephen Mather, the first Director of the National Park
Service, once said, ``Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the
tourist who sets out in the morning after an indigestible
breakfast and a fitful night's sleep on an impossible bed.''
That sounds like that statement was made after personal
experience. Director Mather's sentiment, though, is spot-on.
For the vast majority of Americans to enjoy these majestic
attractions that belong to them, they need food and lodging and
other amenities.
The Park Service has a long history of working with private
companies to make sure that visitors receive the concession
services they need. In fact, concessionaires have provided
these services and promoted the parks since Yellowstone
National Park in my home State of Wyoming was designated the
Nation's first national park, back in 1872.
Oddly, though, in our parks, visitation is stagnating.
National park attendance has not significantly increased over
the last 25 years--this is nationwide rather than a park-by-
park basis--despite a national population increase of over 30
percent, a spike in international visitors, and the addition of
dozens of new park units.
Currently, the typical park visitor is a baby-boomer.
Millennials and younger visitors are not coming to the parks in
the numbers that we expected. Much of this can be traced to the
increase in competition from other tourism opportunities and
the Park Service's failure, perhaps, to keep up with the
changing tastes of new generations.
Concessioners can serve a pivotal role in reversing this.
Our national parks and their concessioners must keep up with
changing times. Younger visitors and contemporary families want
access to tech amenities, such as Internet access and WiFi.
They want comfortable and modern places to stay.
Concessioners want to provide these services, and we, both
in Congress and at the National Park Service, need to make sure
that they are able to offer these things. More visitors using
more services results in more money for concessioners and more
money for the National Park Service.
Today, we will be receiving testimony from three
concessioners about ways that we can update and modernize the
park visiting experience. In addition to these witnesses
present, we also have received written testimony from half a
dozen other concessioners, representing park operations from
all over the country.
Now, the issues that were brought up include, first of all,
the complexity of the Park Service bid applications. For
example, the recently considered Denali National Park
prospectus was 1,629 pages long. I mean, that is how long
legislation is around here that affects 20 percent of our
economy, that is just sweepingly game-changing. One small
single park concession company spent over 2,500 company
management hours and more than $90,000 preparing their
application.
Expanding the operating season is another issue that was
identified. In some cases, lodging, such as camp grounds, is
very popular at certain parks and actually sells out. Though
these parks are open year-round, their concessions operations
are seasonal. Grand Canyon National Park, for example, is
affected by this circumstance.
Another is a lack of a rating system. The Park Service does
not employ any way in which to recognize excellence among its
concessioners. California, for instance, uses an awards bonus
point system in State park bid submittals for achieving
extraordinary ratings 3 years in a row. Perhaps a good model
for us to look at.
There are many other ways we can modernize the National
Park concession system, and I hope we can talk about many of
these today. I very much look forward to the hearing, and I
want to hear suggestions on your ideas for improving National
Park Service concession services and visitor experiences.
We are very fortunate also today to have Ms. Lena McDowall,
the Chief Financial Officer for the National Park Service, with
us here this morning.
Welcome. We thank you and all of our witnesses for taking
the time to appear.
I now recognize Mrs. Lawrence, ranking member of the
Subcommittee on the Interior, for her opening statement.
Mrs. Lawrence. Good morning. I thank all the witnesses who
are here. And, Madam Chair, I really thank you for holding this
important hearing.
I appreciate the National Park Service's protection and
care of our Nation's cherished natural and cultural resources
and for the important educational or recreational opportunities
that they provide for all Americans. As the Park Service
prepares for its centennial celebration in 2016, we must ensure
that the very best services are provided for the 280 million
visitors that our national parks attract each year.
Vendors play a key role in providing visitor services. They
offer a wide range of recreational and retail services, while
helping to generate more than $1.2 billion annually in revenue
for the Federal Government. Vendors also employ--and this is an
important key--more than 25,000 workers and are major drivers
in the growth of communities that surround parks.
I understand that the public is demanding more recreational
and cultural opportunities during their visits to the national
parks. I also understand the vendors are ready, willing, and
able to provide these additional visitor services, but they
have encountered some barriers.
Today we will examine some of the challenges faced by the
National Park Service and vendors in providing the best visitor
experience to our parks. These challenges include a rigid
contracting process, contracts which create negative cash flow
for vendors, and the Park Service's failure to meet public
demand for more services.
Although the Park Service has made great improvements in
its contracting processes in recent years, more work is needed
and more work should be done. We can always work to improve the
contracting process, with greater cooperation between the
government and the industry. And I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses here today as we explore possible solutions that
can drive progress on this issue and help create a memorable
centennial celebration that all Americans can take pride in and
enjoy.
I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the ranking member.
And the chair notes the presence of the gentlelady of the
District of Columbia. Thank you for your interest. We welcome
you to participate in today's hearing. Some of our most notable
and recognizable National Park Service properties are right
here under your nose, and we appreciate your stewardship and
fine work on their behalf.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
member who would like to submit a written statement.
Mrs. Lummis. We will now recognize our panel of witnesses.
First of all, once again, I am very pleased to welcome Ms.
Lena McDowall, Chief Financial Officer of the National Park
Service at the U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Terry
MacRae, chairman and chief executive officer of Hornblower
Tours; and Mr. Alex Klein, vice president and general manager
of the Grand Teton Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company, one
of my personal favorites; and Mr. Chris Belland, chairman and
chief executive officer of Historic Tours of America.
Welcome, one and all.
Please rise and raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Let the record show they answered in the affirmative.
And thank you, and please be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire statement, written
statement, will be entered into the record, but we will keep
you pretty close to a 5-minute clock during your prepared
remarks as you share them with us.
The chair recognizes Ms. McDowall for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF LENA MCDOWALL
Ms. McDowall. Thank you.
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you at this hearing on
modernizing the National Park Service concession program.
In 2016, the National Park Service will celebrate 100 years
as the steward of the Nation's most cherished national and
cultural treasures. We are actively preparing for our second
century and working hard to inspire the next generation of
visitors to experience and value their public lands.
Concessions will play a critical role in providing food,
lodging, and recreational services to those visitors.
Today, concession contractors provide an array of services
across the National Park System, from operating iconic lodges
to guiding climbers and hunters to providing ferry
transportation and children's educational programs. The
National Park Service administers around 500 contracts in over
100 parks. These contracts range from $100,000 to over $140
million in annual gross receipts and currently generate more
than $1 billion in annual gross revenue for concessioners.
The concessions program has been defined by two major laws:
the Concessions Policy Act of 1965 and the National Park
Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998.
The 1965 act provided protections for incumbent
concessioners, including a preference in the renewal of their
contracts, contract terms of up to 30 years, and possessory
interest, which recognized a right of compensation for
improvements made by concessioners.
By the early 1990s, Congress recognized that the concession
system required reform. In many cases, visitor services lacked
quality, facilities were not being maintained, and prices were
higher than comparable goods and services outside the park.
Most observers attributed these problems to a system that
essentially provided a permanent contract to any concessioner
that wished to continue operating. The desire to transform the
concessions program into a more competitive, business-like
operation was the driving force behind the 1998 act.
The 1998 act repealed the preference in renewal, providing
preference for only small concession operations; shortened the
maximum contract to 20 years; and replaced possessory interest
with leasehold surrender interest. The law also called upon the
National Park Service to ensure reasonable prices for visitors,
to implement more contemporary business practices, and ensure a
fair return to the government in the form of franchise fees.
Over the last 14 years, we have taken significant steps to
meet those objectives, and there have been many successes. We
have significantly increased franchise fee revenue, reduced the
amount of deferred maintenance related to concessions
facilities, used new contract requirements to better maintain
concessions facilities at many parks, and reduced the number of
contracts operating under continuations or extensions from
nearly half the contract inventory in 2002 to about 17 percent
today.
From 2004 to 2014, there has been substantial growth in
both concession gross receipts and franchise fee revenue.
Concessioner gross receipts have grown from about $805 million
to $1.3 billion a year, and franchise fees have grown from
about $27 million to over $85 million. The increases are a
result of more professional financial analysis; better business
opportunities for concessioners; and higher bids from
concessioners, as competition has spurred many prospective
vendors to bid higher than the minimum required franchise fee.
The more professional prospectus development process and
more competition for concession contracts have also resulted in
benefits for visitors. A few highlights include new facilities
at Yellowstone, Badlands, Kings Canyon, and Hawaii Volcanoes
National Parks; increased options for overnight accommodations
by adding camper cabins, which combine camping and lodging, at
John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway and Lassen Volcanic
National Park. It has also resulted in a better variety of food
and beverage offerings and retail options, featuring locally
produced foods and regional handcrafted items; upgraded
furnishings at many facilities; and frequent incorporation of
park interpretive themes and messages throughout concession
operations.
While we have made progress since the implementation of the
1998 law, much work remains. As the National Park Service
enters its second century, we are exploring ideas to improve
facilities and attract new audiences by providing a broader
array of visitor services and by expanding the number of
companies interested in bidding on commercial services
contracts.
The National Park Service will continue to pursue ways to
modernize and improve the program and is open to new ideas that
would provide us with an opportunity to better meet our
mission.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. McDowall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. MacRae, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TERRY MACRAE
Mr. MacRae. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members. The
National Park Hospitality Association is pleased to offer
testimony today regarding the great opportunity we have to
continue providing visitor experiences in our amazing national
parks.
My name is Terry MacRae, and I serve as the volunteer
chairman of the National Park Hospitality Association, which is
the organization that has members providing more than $1
billion of visitor services within national park units.
Just a little bit about my company. We started as a
concessioner in 2006 with the service to Alcatraz Island; added
the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island Immigration Museum in
2008. Since then, we have served over 45 million visitors to
those 2 parks. We use a fleet of 15 different vessels and
provide 250 direct jobs, many to professional mariners. In
2014, we paid over $19 million in franchise fees to the
National Park Service.
Hornblower and the other members of NPHA are grateful every
day to be concession partners of the National Park Service. We
have some amazing member companies that have have super
promotional capabilities, contemporary management practices--
all of which are intended to produce benefit to those companies
but also more financial resources for the parks and, of course,
great visitor services.
My comments also reflect today the respect we have for the
employees and leaders of the National Park Service. They truly
have a complicated, challenging job to manage some of the
greatest natural and cultural assets anywhere and keeping these
assets relevant to the American public. And, by and large, they
do an amazing job, considering their challenges.
America's National Parks are a unifying legacy. With the
centennial coming along, it's really an important time in the
parks' history. And the parks, frankly, should be nonpartisan.
They shouldn't be R's and D's and I's visiting parks. They are
all Americans.
The fact that the centennial is here shouldn't hide the
reality that we have a few challenges within the parks. There
is the need for new resources and new strategies. But, frankly,
even during the worst times and the Great Depression, the parks
were able to advance and move forward. And so, today, I think
some of that same vision is important to bring to bear.
As the chair pointed out, visitation in the parks has
really been unchanged for the last 25 years, particularly
considering that the population has grown and the number of new
park units has been added. There's fewer visitor choices in the
parks, in some cases. There should be more opportunities to
provide those visitor services. And, frankly, considering the
overall budget of about $3 billion--and less than $100 million
of that comes from franchise fees paid by the visitors through
the concessioners--it seems like there is a huge opportunity
there.
Concessioners pay almost $100 million in franchise fees,
but there are certainly more ways that those can be improved.
We have almost 25,000 employees working, serving about 100
million visitors annually.
So, many of the parks and lodges that people enjoy in the
parks today were built by some of the first concessioners. The
maintenance of those facilities is now a challenge. There's
plenty of opportunity to consider how that should be done in
the future.
The Concession Act of 1998, I'm a poster child for that. We
came along after that act, and we provided many of the benefits
that Lena spoke about, arriving and working under a new system.
But the fact of the matter is that the Concession Act needs a
tune-up. After 15 years, there are some opportunities to make
some fixes there to deal with things like LSI and other areas
that need to be improved.
You know, in fairness to the National Park Service, they
have adjusted dramatically over the last 15 years to the new
Concession Act, and they have built a strong new team of
concession and business service leaders, and they are gathering
more momentum and traction all the time.
Efforts to promote the national parks are lagging,
considering what a great opportunity that is. And, with the
centennial, there is more and more opportunity to do that. By
and large, a tune-up of the 1998 act that includes modernizing
some of the business practices and adding the capability to
promote the parks to the overall partnership between the
concessioners and the Park Service is important.
I'm going to introduce a great article here by National
Geographic that talked about how good old marketing saved the
national parks 100 years ago, when they were first trying to
get traction.
And, in our testimony, we have provided 10 important
recommendations to try to advance the cause of both the
concessioners and the National Park Service in serving the
visitors.
So I think that concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to
answer questions and have discussion as appropriate. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. MacRae follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. MacRae.
I now recognize the gentleman from the beautiful, beloved
State of Wyoming, Mr. Klein, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALEX KLEIN
Mr. Klein. Chairman Lummis, thank you. Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Alex Klein. I'm the vice president and general
manager of Grand Teton Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company in
the great State of Wyoming. I'm joined by representatives from
Delaware North Company and Forever Resorts, who also operate in
Wyoming.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining me.
We operate lodging, campgrounds, restaurants, retail
outlets, gas stations, and other visitor activities in two
national park sites. Many of these facilities were constructed
or modernized by RockResorts shortly after John D. Rockefeller
donated the land that is now part of Grand Teton National Park.
We are fortunate to have an incredible group of National
Park Service staff to work with every day. Park Superintendent
David Vela is to be commended for his leadership. My comments
today are in the spirit of the continued successful partnership
with the National Park Service.
There are three areas I would like to focus on: improving
facilities and service, implementing modern business practices,
and recognizing and rewarding outstanding concessioners.
We strive to not only maintain our facilities and services
but improve them where it makes sense. In campgrounds, we have
made significant improvements, including better ADA
accessibility, more electronic hookups, and the addition of
bear boxes. In our lodging facilities, we have added high-speed
Internet access in most locations.
Just in the last year, at Jackson Lake Lodge, we have
expanded food and beverage service through the addition of an
outdoor kitchen, renovated 361 guest bathrooms--in the winter
in Jackson Hole--and made other infrastructure improvements.
Last month, we started providing guided kayak tours at our
Colter Bay Village Marina.
I have two recommendations that will encourage even more
improvements of facilities and additional services. Firstly,
contracts need to allow for more flexibility to address
services and improvements not anticipated at the beginning of
the contract term. Secondly, all parties would benefit from a
simplified process for capital projects. This would lead to a
better and more timely use of these funds.
The price approval and standards evaluation process would
also benefit from the implementation of modern business
practices used in the hospitality industry. In Grand Teton
National Park, we have worked with the National Park Service to
pilot the use of modern revenue management strategies, such as
a length-of-stay restriction, and are working on proposals to
introduce even more modern yield management practices.
Through our online comment card system, we receive realtime
feedback from visitors. We share access to this system with the
National Park Service in allowing them full review of all guest
feedback. Web sites such as TripAdvisor also provide guest
reviews that can be reviewed by consumers and park personnel
alike.
My recommendations to implement modern business practices
include: consider whether or not the current NPS practice of
standards and evaluation remains relevant with the wealth of
other data available; and encourage the further testing of
modern revenue management strategies used industrywide and
consider market declaration pricing in parks where significant
lodging is available in gateway communities.
In the 60 years that we have operated in Grand Teton
National Park, we feel our overall performance has been strong.
We have provided high-quality visitor services, built a
sustainable business, maintained strong community
relationships, and partnered with the National Park Service.
Unfortunately, this strong track record provides no assurance
we will be successful in continuing our operations beyond our
current contract.
The current competitive process for concession contracts is
imperfect. On one hand, the current process has done a good job
of raising the bar for performance and challenges concessioners
to operate more safely, more sustainably, and provide greater
care to the assets. On the other hand, the unintended
consequence has been further consolidation of concession
contracts, less competition, and the reward of concession
contracts to those that cannot only necessarily deliver the
best operations but those that deliver the best proposal.
I have three recommendations for the contract process: A
system designed to reward those that do provide excellence in
concession operations would benefit both the incumbent
concessioners as well as the National Park Service. Such a
system would encourage constant innovation and excellence in
the performance of the contract. Longer contracts could provide
the security of a return on investment where significant
facility and infrastructure upgrades are required. And adding
transparency wherever practicable. The current process lacks
transparency and doesn't allow unsuccessful bidders to
understand their perceived shortcomings.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. Thank
you to the men and women of the National Park Service, who
steward the parks on behalf of the American public and future
generations. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Klein.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Belland for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER C. BELLAND
Mr. Belland. Madam Chair, distinguished members, ladies and
gentlemen, by way of introduction, my name is Chris Belland.
I'm the CEO of Historic Tours of America.
We're the largest operator of themed vehicles in North
America, hosting approximately 3 million guests each year, with
operations in Key West, St. Augustine, Savannah, Washington,
Boston, and San Diego, and most recently were awarded the
contract for interpretive services in Arlington National
Cemetery.
We also operate 10 historic attractions, including, for the
State of Florida, the Truman Little White House; Potter's Wax
Museum, the first wax museum in the United States; the Boston
Tea Party Ship and Museum; a $25 million recreation of
Griffin's Wharf, celebrating the single-most important event
leading to the American Revolution.
More to the point, in concert with the founding owners, we
have operated the ferry to the Dry Tortugas National Park in
Fort Jefferson, which is 70 miles west of Key West, for a
number of years and in 2010 were awarded the sole-service
contract.
Ken Burnscharacterized the National Park System as
``America's best idea.'' I submit that the dedicated members of
the National Park Service with whom I have been able to deal
and their partner concessioners believe that.
I had the opportunity to hear a speech by Director Jon
Jarvis entitled ``Field Guide to American Values'' and came
away convinced that the great parks of this country are the
truest and most pure definitions of what makes us a great
Nation.
But the National Park Service is facing enormous
challenges: There is a backlog of billions of dollars of
deferred maintenance; the National Park Service is mired in
well-intended but archaic rules of engagement with its
concessioners; the NPS faces almost routine annual budget cuts;
and the parks are fighting for relevance in the new age of
technology.
So we can gnash our teeth in despair or collectively
embrace the wisdom of the Chinese proverb, ``The crisis is
opportunity riding the dangerous wind.'' On the eve of the
100th anniversary of the National Park Service, it is past time
to seize the day. The concessioners represent hundreds of
millions of dollars of revenue and tens of millions of dollars
of potential infrastructure investments and are ready to join
hands to do just that.
Thank you for this opportunity to share for your
consideration our individual and collective viewpoints, ideas,
and hopes and dreams for the future.
Our concession is bigger than most but certainly smaller
than many. We will generate revenues this year between $9
million and $10 million. But I'm here as a case study to shares
some lessons we learned over the past 3 years concerning a
request to amend our contract. If learned from, these lessons
and observations might make all the difference, or not--for, as
we know, those who will not learn from their mistakes are bound
to repeat them.
The Reader's Digest version of our background of our
concession is: We were awarded the contract in November 2010.
Previously, there were two operators, each allowed to carry 100
passengers, for a total of 200 a day, paying the park a measly
few hundred dollars for the privilege. Our contract required
the production of a brand-new, state-of-the-art, high-speed
ferry, at a cost of approximately $6.5 million, with Coast
Guard certification to carry 250 passengers.
Here is where it gets interesting. The general management
plan called for a maximum daily visitation of 350 from all
sources, such as our ferry, seaplanes, and private vessels. We
were now limited to only 150 passengers a day. Why such a large
vessel? To provide a commodious experience for passengers and
to carry camping gear. Fair enough. But it became immediately
evident that the daily visitation of 350 was never achieved. In
short, there was excess capacity.
Given our new ability to work with the National Park
Service to market a product, we were confronted almost daily
with standbys of over 20 people and some who didn't even show
up. The market had spoken, and it was an ``aha'' moment. The GM
capacity was not being met. We had the seats, and people wanted
to go. Sounded good. Sounded good to us and also by the staff
of the National Park Service.
We made our initial ask for an increase of passengers of 25
each day in February 2013 but were to find out the path of
commonsense flexibility in these contracts was not an easy one.
I'm a businessman and would not enter a contract,
especially one for 10 years, to someone to manage my property
without a tacit or explicit way to adjust the agreement. Things
change. Fuel goes up, hurricanes come, BP spills oil, world
economies and travels change. No, the National Park Service is
not a business, but it is in business and needs to respond
accordingly.
The result of our request: After 20 months, it was
approved, and, even though everyone assured me it was a good
idea, there was just no mechanism to get it done. There was a
loss of revenue, and perhaps as many as 10,000 people were
denied the opportunity to see one of America's most unique and
wonderful places.
In just 7 months since getting permission, we paid the park
an additional $117,000. More importantly, the National Park
Service missions of public access and asset protection have
been better served. And it was all done with the stroke of a
pen.
The takeaway is the National Park Service doesn't have to
do anything. The parks will continue to be funded at some level
of probable diminishing amounts, but the results will be a
self-fulfilling prophecy of a downward spiral of failing
infrastructure and loss of relevance.
I don't speak for other concessioners, but I think what the
National Park Service should do is build commonsense
flexibility into these long-term agreements and drive the
decisionmaking process down to the lowest level possible. The
folks who run the parks know what needs to be done. Give them
the responsibility and the authority. It's appropriate to quote
Teddy Roosevelt, who said, ``Find the right person to do the
job, then get out of their way.''
Finally, I think that you should incentivize the good
efforts of your concessioners and, frankly, your own people
with a measurable format of performance and reward those
efforts with contract extensions.
Thank you for the opportunity to be stewards of these great
assets. Thank you for your kind attention. And thank you for
your service.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Belland follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, gentlemen and gentlelady.
We will now follow with questions from the members. The
chair will recognize herself first for 5 minutes.
Ms. McDowall, have you heard some of these suggestions
before from concessioners, the concerns about contracting and
lack of contract flexibility and complexity of contracts? And
can you respond to those, please?
Ms. McDowall. I think many of the things that these
gentlemen have mentioned we have heard from many concessioners
on occasion, I think. Over the last number of years, we have
worked within the existing law to try to deal with some of
these challenges.
I do think that there are some elements of the law,
particularly when you look at contract rigidity, that are a
result of not just Park Service process but are a result of the
law. And I think the Park Service would agree that having more
flexibility in the contract models would be of value.
Mrs. Lummis. So you would work with the committee and its
members to bring about some changes that would augment the
flexibility of contracting?
Ms. McDowall. I think the Park Service would be interested
in exploring those opportunities.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much.
The backlog is pretty significant at some of our park
properties. I think, in aggregate, it is over $11 billion.
Again, Ms. McDowall, are there ways in which concessioners
could be part of a solution to address the backlog?
Ms. McDowall. Our primary avenue for financing capital
improvements for concession-managed assets is leasehold
surrender interest.
I do think there is interest on the part of concessioners
in doing more capital improvements. I think the difficulty from
the Park Service perspective is we are always looking at the
financial feasibility of concessions contracts. The way that
leasehold surrender interest works, the investment grows over
the life of the contract. So, at the end of the contract, the
amount that is owed on that contract has to be paid by the next
incoming concessioner if another concessioner is chosen.
So the Park Service is very careful about how much LSI it
approves on a particular contract, in order to make sure we
don't end up in a situation where a contract is--we call it
upsidedown, where essentially the revenues that are expected
over the life of that contract can't support the burden of the
LSI investment that would need to be made by an incoming
concessioner.
Mrs. Lummis. I would ask the other panelists to respond to
that concern about a contract getting upsidedown. Would anyone
care to comment on that?
Mr. Klein. I would. Alex Klein, Grand Teton Lodge Company
and Flagg Ranch.
I agree with the conundrum, but I don't see an obvious fix
to it. These are large facilities. They have----
Mrs. Lummis. Yeah.
Mr. Klein. --significant infrastructure, and they require
investment. And it becomes a circular problem. We can't invest
in the facilities because we don't want to increase the LSI in
order to make the contracts more competitive, and then that
circle continues.
And I think we need to find a way, collectively, to break
that cycle. And, from time to time, I think embracing
additional LSI may actually be in the best interest of both
parties.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Anyone else care to comment?
Mr. Belland?
Mr. Belland. Yes. Chris Belland, HTA.
In business--and I keep, you know, talking about business
and the National Park Service, and I don't think they are
exactly enemies or antithetical--you have what is called the
return of capital and return on capital. And to get somebody to
invest in these properties, they have to be assured of two
things: A, they are going to have enough time to amortize those
costs; and, B, there are going to be some profits involved to
justify the risk.
And I think that comes back to what I said before about
rewarding the good efforts of your concessioners with contract
extensions and to give them flexibility to change their
business model as the contract proceeds.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Klein, turning specifically to Grand Teton
National Park, you speak highly of the National Park Service
staff that you deal with.
How important is that relationship in ensuring the
successful park operations? And how can it be improved in parks
that are not as blessed as Grand Teton?
Mr. Klein. Madam Chair, our relationship, I don't think
it's unique, but I do take great pride in the relationship that
we've had in Grand Teton National Park. I think on both sides
we view it as a partnership. We have shared mutual goals. We
communicate effectively. You know, from time to time, we may
disagree on a certain point, but I think that's a matter of
just doing good business.
And, you know, that local relationship, I think, is very
important. And I think we have some people in our national
park, on the concessions management staff and in
administration, including the Superintendent and the Deputy
Superintendent, that I would loosely term as progressive in the
National Park Service, that they are open to new ideas.
And I documented a few items in my testimony that I think
are progressive in the National Park System. We have had some
significant success. I would just like to see that grow.
And I think, in some cases, the relationship is not viewed
as a partnership. It's viewed somewhat as adversarial and an
oversight matter. And I think if we truly do embrace this
partnership, I think together we can move forward.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, thank you, panel.
The chair provided herself a very generous 5-minute clock.
She will do the same with the ranking member. Mrs. Lawrence is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a few questions, but I just want to make the
comment, you know, I continuously state that I was previously a
mayor of a city, and I use the term often that a pothole does
not have an ``R'' or ``D'' on it, it just needs to be fixed.
And I like that analogy of our parks do not have R's or D's on
them.
I wanted to ask the question--and, Madam Chair, if you
would allow me to enter into the record a statement from John
Garder, who is the director of budget and appropriations for
the National Parks Conservation Association.
Mrs. Lummis. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Lawrence. I wanted to ask a question of Ms. McDowall.
In the statement from Mr. Garder, he talks about those
extenuating circumstances like wildfires, flooding in our
national parks and the impact it has on our budget.
Can you talk to me about how that is budgeted for the
national parks, and is that a challenge?
Ms. McDowall. How the Park Service covers the cost of those
types of events?
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Ms. McDowall. One moment.
So we do have emergency authority to deficit-spend. We
don't save up for those kinds of events. We don't keep----
Mrs. Lawrence. So it is not budgeted.
Ms. McDowall. Right.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay. That is interesting.
Hornblower Cruises operates boat tours to iconic
destinations. And if you are the same cruise, I have used it in
Niagara Falls. But we have heard complaints that the Park
Service has refused to extend the operating hours to these
monuments in spite of overwhelming public demand for change.
Mr. MacRae, please tell me more about these issues, and
discuss whether your company has requested an extension for
your services to these locations. And what has been the
National Park Service response?
Mr. MacRae. So, at the Statue of Liberty, we have just
recently had some extension of our operating hours. Generally
speaking, the last tickets are sold in midafternoon, in the
city that doesn't sleep at all. It's sometimes a staffing
question. It's sometimes thought of as a budget question,
although the payments for franchise fees will pretty much
support any operating hours at that location.
So there has been some movement in that. We had an evening
program several years ago that was discontinued but not for
lack of demand. So the park has been receptive there to some
movement, although, considering how large the opportunity is,
it's a glacial pace to expand visitation that way.
Alcatraz, we have had some opportunity to expand shoulder
season definitions. We went from having three seasons to having
two seasons. We can run 14 cruises a day during the busy season
and 10 during the winter. The fact of the matter is Alcatraz is
virtually sold out all the time. We could probably have 50
percent more, maybe 100 percent more visitors there than we
actually have.
And there's a lot of different reasons. Some, you know, can
be overcome through change in programming and change in
facilities. I just think, generally speaking, the parks are not
as driven to find ways to increase visitation because they
don't operate off of that budget.
Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Belland, your company, Historic Tours of
America, experienced similar issues, and, if I'm not mistaken,
it was stated that it took nearly 2 years to resolve. Can you
tell me why it took so long? What was your experience?
Mr. Belland. Do we have the rest of the day?
Well, again, this is our first concession, and our
experience in working with the parks was rather new to the
game. I worked with the local guy at Everglades, Dan Kimball,
who is now retired, and, boy, he thought it was a great idea.
He said, I'm going to make this my legacy contribution to the
Dry Tortugas, because it makes sense.
I mean, as I said before, the general management plan of
350 was never met. There just weren't enough people going out
there. We had the capacity, and people wanted to go. So it
seemed a very logical thing. But this thing went up to Atlanta,
then it went from Atlanta to Washington, then back down to
Everglades. And it was back and forth so many times, I've got a
whole sheath of documents, you know, of letters and emails
going back and forth trying to get this done.
And it was something, as I said before, I think it really
should have been delegated to a lower level than Washington,
D.C. The people in Atlanta certainly know what to do in this
regard. And I can tell you that the folks in Everglades did
too. It was just a no-brainer thing. It had no impact on the
asset and a minimal impact on staffing, so why not?
Mrs. Lawrence. If you will allow me to ask just one more
question, Madam Chair.
Ms. McDowall, you have heard the comments made from these
two. What has the National Park Service--have you analyzed it?
Have you identified it? And is there any movement to change the
processing so that we can cut down that turnaround time?
Ms. McDowall. So there are a number of things that the Park
Service is doing, particularly for smaller contracts, to try to
streamline the request-for-proposal process and the contracting
process.
I think when it comes to the process for trying to make
changes in services during the life of a contract, the Park
Service is trying to be as flexible as possible
administratively within the constraints of the law to make
changes to services.
I think that the constraint we are operating under is
that--and forgive me, I don't have the clause memorized--there
are some clauses within the law that talk about the Park
Service needing to issue a new prospectus if they are going to
expand services or add new services during the life of a
contract.
So the Park Service is very careful about where that line
is. And I think some of that frustration you hear from
concessioners, I think commercial services people in parks
share those same frustrations. Ten years, 15, 20 years is a
long time on a contract, and things do change, but we don't
have a great deal of flexibility to make significant changes
during the term of a contract. And part of the back-and-forth
is working with the lawyers to determine what is significant.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentlelady and recognize the
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairlady.
Ms. McDowall, I'm going to ask you a little bit about the
backlog that you have in deferred maintenance and some of the
infrastructure issues that the Park Service now faces.
What steps is the Park Service taking to address this
backlog?
Ms. McDowall. So I think we have done a number of things. I
think the work that's been done to get a handle on what the
backlog is in the first place was the first significant move, I
think.
You're seeing the Park Service now really focus its
attention and resources on our high-priority, nontransportation
deferred maintenance, those facilities that really are
important for serving visitors, and working on ways to direct
funding----
Mr. Palmer. Let me ask you----
Ms. McDowall. --to those facilities. Yes?
Mr. Palmer. I'm going to get to some specific things here,
maybe even generate some ideas.
But when you say the significant, what would those be?
Would it be anything from a visitor facility to a road or a
bridge?
Ms. McDowall. So nontransportation are the----
Mr. Palmer. Okay.
Ms. McDowall. --things that I'm focusing on. So things
like----
Mr. Palmer. Would that include a ferry?
Ms. McDowall. --visitor centers, bathrooms----
Mr. Palmer. But when you say nontransportation, would that
that exclude ferries?
Ms. McDowall. So the Park Service doesn't own many ferries.
I think we're talking about buildings, for the most part.
Mr. Palmer. Okay.
Ms. McDowall. Yeah.
Mr. Palmer. All right.
Ms. McDowall. And trails, to a lesser extent.
Mr. Palmer. All right.
One of the things that, looking through the background on
this, is the leaseholder surrender interest. Is there a
possibility that more private investment could help address
some or maybe even a significant portion of the infrastructure
improvement needs?
Ms. McDowall. I think in some of the concession-managed
assets there is certainly a role for the private sector. I
think you see that in some of the longer concessions contracts
that we have recently issued and that we're about to issue.
There's the large lodging contract at Yellowstone that's 15
years that has a great deal of private investment associated
with it.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Does the Park Service own the lodge, or
is that a private----
Ms. McDowall. The Park Service does own the facility.
Mr. Palmer. Is there any possibility that you could have a
public-private partnership or a private entity own the lodge?
Ms. McDowall. I don't immediately know the answer to that.
Mr. Palmer. That's one of the things that I would think you
might want to consider in addressing some of the backlog. And,
again, if you take a look at the leaseholder surrender
interest--and we could work out some arrangement where private
entities own the facilities, and then the contract or the
agreement was structured in such a way that, over the long
term, they would be able to not only recover their investment
but earn a profit, it might take some of the burden off of the
Park Service.
Mr. MacRae or Mr. Klein or Mr. Belland, do you have any--
and this is just in the context of some ideas that might help
solve some of these problems and make your job a little bit
easier.
Mr. MacRae?
Mr. MacRae. Mr. Palmer, I could speak to that for a moment.
One of the things that the 1998 act did do is provide for
the ability to do some leasing. So, from a practical
standpoint, some of the projects and opportunities that require
a much longer amortization period than is available under the
concession contract could probably best be handled by leasing.
And, frankly, it might be a nice bridge between figuring out
what the LSI solution is, because you do need a long period of
time to amortize some of these investments, and it's really not
provided, the capability to do that, within a shorter
concession agreement.
So, clearly, the leasing channel is one. And in the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area, we have two examples of that.
One is the Argonaut Hotel, and one is Cavallo Point. So the
Park Service does have assets that can be leased. And probably,
with, you know, some urging and some direction, they would
probably do more of them.
Mr. Palmer. Well, my perspective is that, when you have a
private interest in something and you basically own it, you've
got more motivation to invest in it, keep it up. And I think it
helps on the concession side. It helps in attracting visitors.
I want to go back to Ms. McDowall on the fees.
The inspector general's office laid out some specific
recommendations, some of which you have handled well. Where are
you in the process of increasing the fees?
Ms. McDowall. So we have finished, for the most part, the
public engagement process that we go through before we make a
decision to raise fees. Most parks that did engage in that
conversation with the public have decided to raise fees, maybe
not quite as much as they had proposed, but many of them are
raising fees. I think we started seeing increases back in
February. And most parks that were going to raise fees have
raised them so far, usually after Memorial Day, at the
beginning of the season.
Mr. Palmer. All right.
Ms. McDowall. So we are moving forward.
Mr. Palmer. Well, my time has expired. I would just like to
conclude with this, to encourage the Park Service to look at
these public-private partnerships going forward as maybe a part
of the solution.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. Buck, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Buck. Thank you.
Ms. McDowall, what law are we talking about? You have
mentioned ``the law'' a number of times. Could you tell me a
code section, if you have it?
Ms. McDowall. It's the Concessions Management Improvement
Act of 1998.
Mr. Buck. Okay.
And, specifically, you mentioned some of the parts of the
law that are constraining you. Can you give me some more
details?
Because I think one of the things that we all want to do on
this committee is try to help you gain that flexibility, and,
if there is a statutory remedy, I think we all want to try to
look at that.
Ms. McDowall. So the way that the law lays out the request-
for-proposal process, it requires the Park Service to be very
detailed at the front end about the services that should be
provided and the structure of the contract. So there's not
really much of an opportunity for negotiation.
In the private sector, you might--or even in an airport
concessions process, they might have a two-part process, where
they find qualified bidders, and then they actually negotiate
with them to talk about what kinds of services the various
offerors might provide.
The Park Service can't really do that under this law. We
have to evaluate and decide at the front end what services
should be offered. That goes into an RFP. And the bidders have
to bid on a contract that's almost completely set in the RFP.
There's not much room to maneuver after we select an offeror.
Mr. Buck. So you have mentioned a contract model. Is it
that the FAA has? Or what----
Ms. McDowall. So some of the things or some of the examples
of more flexible models would be the types of leases that Mr.
MacRae mentioned. Managing agreements are common in the hotel
industry.
Neither of those are real options under the concessions
law. We do have leasing authority, but it specifically does not
allow the Park Service to enter into a lease when a concessions
contract is what we should use.
Mr. Buck. Okay.
Any other areas of flexibility? Obviously, you are dealing
with lodging, you are dealing with food services, you are
dealing with a number of different areas. I would imagine each
of them needs a separate type of flexibility.
Ms. McDowall. Right. They are all very unique. And I think
having the ability to mix and match different contract types,
change the way the terms are constructed for various business
opportunities, would be valuable.
Mr. Buck. Okay.
Ms. McDowall. We have a one-size-fits-all approach right
now.
Mr. Buck. Who are the best people to talk to at the Park
Service to try to deal with developing a different model or
looking at different models and trying to apply them?
Ms. McDowall. It would be the Commercial Services Program
within the Chief Financial Officer's program of----
Mr. Buck. And you know those folks well.
Ms. McDowall. Very well.
Mr. Buck. Okay.
I have no further questions. I yield back.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, I thank the gentleman and would ask the
panel if they would be willing to entertain a lightning round,
where we each get one question and one question only and
alternate.
Without objection, we will take that approach, and the
chair recognizes herself for one question.
Ms. McDowall, are these contracting--the attorneys that--or
people who draft these prospectuses--for example, I have been
told, at Denali, they even specify within the prospectus
application different prices for soft drinks in different parts
of the park. That sounds like micromanagement to such an
extreme that you can visualize a 1,600-page contract. You can
also visualize a less efficient bidding process when that kind
of specificity is included in the prospectus application.
Is that normal, and do all of them have that type of
specificity? And doesn't that seem--how can we ferret out that
kind of micromanagement from the contracting process and really
get down to the type of contracting that would benefit the Park
Service as well as the applicants?
Ms. McDowall. So there are things that we are doing to
reduce the amount of specificity that's required on those types
of things.
There is an approach called core menu, where Washington has
been very encouraging for parks and regions who are developing
contracts to really only look at a small subset of items on a
particular menu, for example. And the Park Service would
approve rates on those items, maybe five, six, seven items on a
menu, and the rest of the menu items are available for the
concessioner to price however they would wish.
Washington does not dictate to every park and every region
exactly how they should structure their contract. It's a very
decentralized organization. We leave a lot of local discretion
to the field.
And so, even though that flexibility is there, we do still
have circumstances where I think there is probably more
specificity than is required.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Mrs. Lawrence?
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We have spoken about the centennial coming up. The House is
considering an appropriation bill that would increase the Park
Service's budget by roughly $50 million this year. That is a
good start, but, given the importance of the upcoming
centennial year and the substantial funding challenges that the
Park Service is facing, is that enough?
So my question to you, Ms. McDowall: What is the Park
Service planning to do to make sure our parks are ready for the
centennial? And--it was only supposed to be one question. What
are you doing, and will you have the funds to do it?
Ms. McDowall. So I think you're right, the $50 million
isn't going to get us all the way there. It will certainly
help. Raising fees helps. I think having more money available
for facilities will help.
And then I think, outside the financial realm, I think
there are a lot of--there's a lot of work being done in the
Park Service about the kinds of programs that we offer. I think
there are certainly things we can do, working with our
concessioners, to look at different types of visitor services
that could be offered that are the types of services that
visitors are expecting in this day and age that will help us be
ready for what we hope is a large influx of visitors and
different visitors than we've had in the past.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. The chair recognizes Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. MacRae, in your testimony, you talked about
that park visitation has been unchanged over 25 years despite a
30-percent increase in the population of the United States. And
you raised some concerns that, if you deducted the number of
visitors to the World War II Memorial and the newer monuments,
that, really, park visitation is down below 1987 numbers. Can
you elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. MacRae. The population of the country has grown
significantly over time. The visitation to the parks have not
grown over that same period.
If you think of the parks as, you know, 400 units that host
300 million visitors a year, a $3 billion budget--and there's
not a chief marketing officer. The word ``marketing'' in the
parks, frankly, until Director Jarvis came along and was
willing to use it, you know, in public, was a verboten word
there. ``Promotion,'' of course, is in the act, so they
recognized the need for promotion. But the parks have an
amazing brand, and they have amazing assets, and they have a
huge number of visitors that want to come but don't know much
about it. So there's some great opportunities to join with the
National Parks Promotion Council and the National Park
Foundation and BrandUSA to promote the parks.
And, frankly, the visitation within the parks hasn't
reflected the change in our population either. So there's some
work that needs to be done there, and the Park Service, I
think, has recognized that. And the centennial has given them
some opportunity to focus on it and try to find a way forward
there. And we really encourage that and support that, as
concessioners.
Within our parks, of course, we go out and promote the
parks where we provide services, but that still leaves 300
parks that don't have anybody promoting them, so--huge
opportunity there, in our view.
Mr. Palmer. It sounds like we need a major marketing plan.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
Before I close the hearing, I want to give each of our
panelists one last question and one last chance to close. And
so I like to close hearings by asking any of the panelists to
respond to a question you wish you would have been asked. So
the chair will recognize each panelist for kind of a closing
statement.
Mr. Belland, you are recognized first.
Mr. Belland. Well, that's interesting.
You know, it's hard to sit here in this limited amount of
time and talk about all the things that we have experienced as
concessioners. I want to reiterate the comments of my fellow
panelists by saying that we work with an extraordinary group of
people who are absolutely dedicated to the prospects of the
National Park Service mission.
They, as much as we, have our hands tied. Listening to Ms.
McDowall's comments about being able to change contracts, you
know, to me, put in a more simple way, which is what I was
confronted with--and it was never said to me--was that, after
you get a contract, after you win the award, they really can't
negotiate with you.
And the reason for that is that the National Park Service
is wary--I won't use the word ``afraid'' because I don't think
you're afraid of anything--but they're wary of another bidder
coming back and saying, oh, well, if you'd let me do that, you
know, I could have--blah, blah, blah. And they're afraid of
those lawsuits, and I understand that.
But I think there has to be a modicum of common sense
brought to the National Park Service in a businesslike fashion
that will allow it to be flexible over these contracts.
Because, as I said, things change, big things change, and you
have to be able to change direction as you need to.
And, again, you have partners working for you, with you,
that are willing to toe the line and do the right thing. I
mean, it's in all of our best interests to promote the parks,
provide the very best service we can. Because we are facing
right now, as Congressman Palmer said, we are facing a crisis
of attendance, and we have got to find a way to make the
National Park Service relevant in this technological age.
Because they say, if a child does not go camping by the time he
is 16, he will never go camping in his life. Now, that's not
the generation that I grew up with. And I grew up in the age of
no television, and now every kid walks around with a television
in his hand.
And so we have to seek ways, I think, to your point--I
think the question is, what can we do together to make the
National Park Service relevant for the next generation.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much.
You are absolutely right about contracting. When I was
State treasurer, we would issue RFPs and award external
managers for money. And then, if there were substantial
contract revisions, we would have disgruntled bidders after us.
So you are absolutely right; it is difficult for government
when you are dealing with big contracts like that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Klein?
Mr. Klein. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity once
again.
And thank you, Mr. Belland, for giving me time to think of
a question I would have been asked.
Mr. Belland. You're welcome.
Mr. Klein. You know, I think there's many questions. And,
to Mr. Belland's point, you know, we haven't had the
opportunity to speak at length about the many issues that I
think we do need to address over time.
But, representing Grand Teton Lodge Company, a company that
was started by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., you know, really just
prior to the formation of the park itself, the same individual
that donated the land, I think about whether or not these
wonderful assets that, Madam Chair, you've enjoyed on many
occasions--Jenny Lake Lodge, Jackson Lake Lodge, Colter Bay
Village--you know, whether that type of ingenuity and those
types of visitor accommodations and fine dining and the
wonderful trips that we provide to people on the Snake River
and the wonderful cookout sites we have on Oak Island, were the
rules the same in 1955 when these lodges were being built and
put together and the visitor services determined, unfortunately
I think in today's day and age that would not have happened,
and we'd be left with a park that didn't have these facilities
that really enhance the visitor experience.
To stay in a room at Jackson Lake Lodge that has a view of
the Tetons is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. To float on the
Snake River on one of our float trips is just an unbelievable
way to see wildlife in its natural habitat. And I think,
unfortunately, with the current process, that type of ingenuity
and new services and new facilities really aren't feasible and
possible today.
Thank you once again.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. And I never tire of that visitor
experience. I have been doing it since I was a little girl and
hope to, God willing, be able to do it until I am no longer
around.
Thank you, Mr. Klein.
Mr. MacRae?
Mr. MacRae. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would say a simple way to think about it is, if you put
the folks that are responsible for preserving thousands-and-
thousands-of-year-old trees and hundreds-and-hundreds-of-year-
old structures into the job of preserving the contracting
system in the National Park Service, you probably won't get it
modernized.
Getting business folks in that have some of that background
and training, which they have been doing--so there's some great
movement in that area. You know, it's a big ship with a small
rudder, and you have to turn that rudder sooner and faster.
And I believe the Park Service recognizes many of these
challenges. And, frankly, if the shackles associated with
either their culture or the laws, the things that are
preventing them from moving forward, were taken off, I think
the progress would be amazing.
So, great opportunities ahead. And I think the
concessioners certainly want to be a part of that and are, you
know, looking at every possibility to find ways to collaborate
with the National Park Service to do that.
Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. MacRae.
And, with all eyes on the Park Service for the next year,
as it celebrates its 100th, it really is an opportunity to
address some of these issues, while we are all acknowledging
the great pride that we have in the National Park Service.
Ms. McDowall, you are our final speaker today.
Ms. McDowall. Thank you.
I think, just in general, the Park Service, of course, is
interested in doing anything we can to do better at
accomplishing our primary mission, which is meeting visitor
needs and protecting resources.
And, to follow up on Mr. MacRae's point, I think there are
a lot of things the Park Service can do and is doing to improve
business acumen within the Park Service, by bringing in new
staff, by better training for the ones that exist, both to
better manage parks and to be better partners with our private-
sector contractors.
And I would also be remiss if I did not mention a question
that I wish I'd been asked, was what marketing campaigns is the
Park Service running in order to prepare for its next century.
And I forgot to mention our Find Your Park campaign that has
been running with the National Park Foundation, which is a
major marketing and outreach push to invite new members of the
American public to come to parks. And I think we're hoping that
that effort bears a lot of fruit.
Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. I want to thank Mrs. Lawrence, Mr. Palmer, and
other members of the committee. And I want to thank our
panelists and guests for being here today and for sharing your
experiences and ideas with us.
I would also like to enter into the record statements from
the following organizations: David Woodside, president of the
Acadia Corporation; John King, regional vice president of
Forever Resorts; Pamela Pitts, secretary of the California
Parks Company; Tim Rout, CEO of Dyno Ventures, Forever Resorts,
Gettysburg Tours, and TRF Concession Specialists of Florida;
and John Garder, director of budget and appropriations at the
National Park Conservation Association.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Lummis. Again, thank you, witnesses, for taking the
time to appear before us today. This hearing was one of the
more enjoyable and enlightening and caused us to think about
some opportunities legislatively and with regard to our
stewardship of our great National Park System. So thank you
kindly.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:17 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]