[Audit Report on Concessioner Improvement Accounts, National Park Service]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 98-I-389

Title: Audit Report on Concessioner Improvement Accounts, National
       Park Service

     Date: March 31, 1998
  
  

                     **********DISCLAIMER**********
  
     This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report. No
     attempt has been made to display graphic images or
     illustrations. Some tables may be included, but may not resemble
     those in the printed version.
  
     A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the
     PDF file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division
     of Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 208-4599.
  
                     ******************************

  
  
     U.S. Department of the Interior         
     Office of Inspector General                              

     AUDIT REPORT

     CONCESSIONER IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNTS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
  
     REPORT NO. 98-I-389
     MARCH 1998                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
  
  
  
     MEMORANDUM
  
     TO: The Secretary
  
     FROM: Robert J. Williams
           Acting Inspector General
  
     SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Final Audit Report for Your Information -
                       "Concessioner Improvement Accounts,
                       National Park Service" (No. 98-I-389)
  
     Attached for your information is a copy of the subject audit
     report. The objective of our audit was to determine whether the
     amounts deposited into concessioner improvement accounts and the
     expenditures from those accounts were appropriate and whether
     the National Park Service's procedures were adequate.
  
     Overall, we concluded that without concessioner improvement
     account funds, many of the new park facilities may not have been
     built and many of the historical structures in the parks may
     have deteriorated further. However, we found that the Park
     Service had not provided clear, sufficient, and timely guidance
     to ensure that account funds were used appropriately and had
     allowed concessioners to use these funds before the August 1995
     procedures were issued. As a result, concessioner improvement
     account funds were used or planned for (1) projects that did not
     directly support concession operations or that benefited both
     the Park Service and concessioners and would have been
     appropriate for cost sharing ($17.5 million), (2) expenditures
     that related to concession operations but that would not be
     considered proper uses of the funds under the new procedures
     ($1.2 million), and (3) capital improvement projects for which
     the concessioner was inappropriately granted a possessory
     interest ($823,000). Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient
     guidance, there is little assurance that improvement account
     funds will be used appropriately and consistently throughout the
     Park Service. In addition, we identified one concessioner that
     did not meet its capital improvement program expenditure
     requirement by about $100,000.
  
     We recommended that the Park Service revise its August 1995
     procedures, amend those contracts which contain provisions that
     are inconsistent with the procedures, and ensure that
     concessioner deposits into the fund are in accordance with the
     concession contracts. Based on the Park Service's response, we
     considered one of the report's three recommendations resolved
     and implemented and requested that the Service reconsider its
     responses to two recommendations, which are unresolved.
  
     If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
     me at (202) 208-5745.
  
     Attachment                       C-SP-NPS-033-96
  
  
  

     Memorandum
 
     To:  Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
  
     From:  Robert J. Williams   Acting Inspector General
  
     Subject:  Audit Report on Concessioner Improvement
               Accounts, National Park Service (No. 98-I-389)
  
     This report presents the results of our audit of concessioner
     improvement accounts maintained by National Park Service
     concessioners. The objective of the audit was to determine
     whether the amounts deposited into concessioner improvement
     accounts and the expenditures from those accounts were
     appropriate. At the request of the Park Service, we also
     reviewed the adequacy of its procedures for concessioner
     improvement accounts.
  
     We concluded that projects financed with concessioner improvement
     account funds enhanced visitor facilities in the park units.
     However, the Park Service had not provided sufficient and timely
     guidance to ensure that concessioner improvement account funds
     were used appropriately and allowed concessioners to use these
     funds before procedures were issued. Although the Park Service
     did issue procedures in August 1995 relating to the use of these
     funds, the procedures did not provide sufficient guidance for
     determining the types of projects that could be funded or for
     establishing cost-sharing agreements for projects that benefited
     both the Park Service and the concessioner. We also found that
     the Park Service (1) did not amend existing concession contracts
     so that they would be in compliance with the new procedures, (2)
     approved projects which were not in conformance with the
     procedures, and (3) did not enforce concessioner compliance with
     contract provisions. As a result, concessioner improvement
     account funds were used for (1) projects initiated before the
     procedures were issued, that did not directly support concession
     operations, or that benefited both the concessioner and the Park
     Service and would have been appropriate for cost sharing ($17.5
     million); (2) expenditures related to concession operations that
     would not be considered proper uses of the funds under the new
     procedures ($1.2 million); and (3) capital improvement projects
     for which the concessioner was improperly granted a possessory
     interest ($823,000). Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient
     guidance on the use of improvement account funds, there is no
     assurance that the funds will be used properly or consistently
     throughout the Park Service. In addition, we identified one
     concessioner that did not meet its capital improvement program
     expenditure requirement by about $100,000.
  
     Regarding deposits to concessioner improvement accounts, we found
     that two concessioners made improper deductions from recorded
     gross receipts in determining the amounts required to be
     deposited into concessioner improvement accounts. As a result,
     these concessioners should have deposited additional funds of
     about $124,800, excluding interest, into these accounts.
  
     In the January 21, 1998, response (Appendix 3) from the Director,
     National Park Service, the Park Service partially concurred with
     Recommendation A.1, did not address all parts of Recommendation
     A.2, and concurred with Recommendation B.1. Based on the
     response, we consider Recommendation B.1 resolved and
     implemented and request that the Park Service reconsider its
     responses to Recommendations A.1 and A.2, which are unresolved
     (see Appendix 4). The Park Service also provided comments on the
     text of the report, which we have considered in preparing the
     final report. One of these comments related to the Other Matters
     section of the draft report, which discussed a special set-aside
     arrangement at Yellowstone National Park. Based on the Park
     Service's comments, we agree that this arrangement was not a
     concessioner improvement account, and accordingly, we excluded
     the Others Matters section from the final report.
  
     In accordance with the Departmental Manual (360 DM 5.3), we are
     requesting a written response to this report by May 22, 1998.
     The response should provide the information requested in
     Appendix 4.
  
     The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector
     General requires semiannual reporting to the Congress on all
     audit reports issued, the monetary impact of audit findings
     (Appendix 1), actions taken to implement audit recommendations,
     and identification of each significant recommendation on which
     corrective action has not been taken.
  
     We appreciate the assistance of National Park Service personnel
     in the conduct of our audit.
  
                   
  

     CONTENTS                                                Page
  
     INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
  
     BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
     OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
     PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
  
     FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
  
     A. IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT PROJECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 
     B. DEPOSITS TO CONCESSIONER IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNTS . . . . 15
  
     APPENDICES
  
     1. CLASSIFICATION OF MONETARY AMOUNTS . . . . . . . . . 17 
     2. SITES VISITED, TYPES OF ACCOUNTS  REVIEWED, AND CONCESSIONER
     DEPOSITS  AND EXPENDITURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 
     3. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
     4. STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . 23    
  
     INTRODUCTION
  
     BACKGROUND
  
     Since 1981, the National Park Service has included provisions in
     some of its concession contracts that require concessioners to
     deposit a percentage of gross receipts into interest- bearing
     bank accounts. (For the purpose of this report, these accounts
     will be referred to as concessioner improvement accounts). Funds
     from these accounts are to be spent by the concessioners on
     projects approved by the Park Service for improving park or
     concessioner property related to concession operations.
     Generally, deposits are made to these accounts in lieu of the
     concessioners' paying franchise fees to the Park Service that
     must be deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury and
     are not available to the Park Service. Before concessioner
     improvement accounts were established, improvements to Park
     Service-owned facilities assigned to concessioners were funded
     by the concessioners through a building improvement program and
     by the Park Service with appropriated funds. The funds deposited
     into and expended from concessioner improvement accounts are
     outside the appropriations process and supplement the
     appropriations made to the Park Service for improving visitor
     facilities. In fiscal year 1995, there were approximately 40
     concessioner improvement accounts at 19 locations, which had
     annual deposits of about $19 million and expenditures of about
     $11 million. The Park Service has informed the Congress through
     the budget process of its use of concessioner improvement
     accounts.
  
     In a February 7, 1995, opinion, the Office of the Solicitor
     concluded that the inclusion of improvement account provisions
     in concession contracts was authorized by law and stated that
     the concessioner improvement accounts ensured that concessioners
     have the financial ability to provide required visitor
     facilities. The Solicitor also concluded that the accounts
     should be used for activities that "directly support concession
     operations" and recommended that the Park Service issue
     procedures for these accounts. The Solicitor subsequently
     determined, in a March 1996 memorandum, that a construction set
     -aside account at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area funded by
     a visitor surcharge (4 1/2 percent of gross receipts) and
     concessioners' contributions (1/2 percent of gross receipts) was
     also a form of a concessioner improvement account.
  
     The Park Service issued procedures for administering concessioner
     improvement accounts on August 11, 1995. These procedures
     identify two types of accounts: capital accounts and government
     improvement accounts. Capital accounts are to be used for
     significant capital improvements of a nonrecurring nature to
     government-owned or concessioner property or for the
     construction of new facilities that "directly support concession
     operations." Government improvement accounts are to be used for
     major repairs and improvements to government-owned structures
     assigned to concessioners for concession purposes. Park Service
     procedures also state that capital and government improvement
     accounts are not to be used for routine maintenance and repairs
     and require that all projects undertaken with concessioner
     improvement account funds be approved in advance by the
     applicable Park Service regional director.
  
     OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
  
     The objective of the audit was to determine whether the amounts
     deposited into concessioner improvement accounts and the
     expenditures from those accounts were appropriate. At the
     request of the Park Service, we also reviewed the adequacy of
     the Park Service's August 11, 1995, procedures for concessioner
     improvement accounts. In total, we reviewed eight accounts at
     five locations, which had fiscal year 1994 and 1995 deposits
     totaling about $25.6 million and expenditures totaling about
     $16.9 million (see Appendix 2). Although we focused our audit on
     improvement account projects that were active during 1994 and
     1995, our scope included transactions that had taken place since
     project initiation. For example, at Glen Canyon we reviewed
     transactions that occurred since project initiation in 1987.
  
     Our review was made in accordance with the "Government Auditing
     Standards," issued by the Comptroller General of the United
     States. Accordingly, we included such tests of records and other
     auditing procedures that were considered necessary under the
     circumstances.
  
     As part of our review, we evaluated the system of internal
     controls related to concessioner improvement accounts to the
     extent that we considered necessary. The internal control
     weaknesses identified are discussed in the Findings and
     Recommendations section of this report. The recommendations, if
     implemented, should improve internal controls over improvement
     account deposits and expenditures. We also reviewed the
     Department of the Interior's Annual Statement and Report, which
     is required by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of
     1982, for fiscal year 1995 and found that no material weaknesses
     were reported which related to the objective and scope of our
     audit.
  
     PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
  
     During the past 6 years, the Office of Inspector General has
     issued three audit reports and the General Accounting Office has
     issued two reports on selected aspects of concessioner
     improvement accounts as follows:
  
     - The Office of Inspector General report "Concessions Management,
     National Park Service" (No. 94-I-1211), issued in September
     1994, recommended that the Park Service obtain a legal opinion
     on the establishment and use of concessioner improvement
     accounts and implement internal controls over the deposit and
     expenditure of account funds. Based on a February 1995
     Solicitor's opinion, the Park Service issued concessioner
     improvement account procedures in August 1995.
  
     - The Office of Inspector General report "Operations of National
     Park Concessions, Inc., Under Contract No. CC-0680-2-0001 With
     the National Park Service" (No. 96-E-541), issued in March 1996,
     contained recommendations that the Park Service, in regard to
     concessioner improvement accounts, should (1) require the
     concessioner to reimburse ineligible expenditures, (2) establish
     new project initiation priorities, (3) amend the contract as it
     related to concessioner bank accounts and interest earned, and
     (4) ensure that administrative costs charged were supported.
     Because of the recency of this report, we did not follow up on
     the recommendations. However, the conditions noted were
     considered during our review at other parks.
  
     - The Office of Inspector General report "National Park Service
     Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996" (No. 97-I
     -936), issued in June 1997, concluded that the Park Service had
     not established a process for collecting reliable and timely
     information on the number of special concession accounts
     (including concessioner improvement accounts) and their deposits
     and disbursements to ensure that the information it reports in
     its notes to the financial statements is complete and accurate.
     However, the Park Service disagreed with the recommendation to
     establish such a process, stating that it did not plan to report
     this information in the notes to the financial statements in
     future years. Accordingly, we referred the recommendation to the
     Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for
     resolution.
  
     - The General Accounting Office report "Policies and Practices
     for Determining Concessioners' Building Use Fees, National Park
     Service" (No. GAO/T-RCED-92-66), issued in May 1992, covered
     testimony before the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources
     Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of
     Representatives. In its report, the General Accounting Office
     recommended that the Park Service develop specific policies,
     methodologies, and guidelines on establishing, administering,
     and tracking set-aside (concessioner improvement) accounts and
     other contractual agreements for repairs, maintenance, and
     improvements to Federally owned facilities used by
     concessioners. Our current review found that the Park Service
     had complied with this recommendation with the issuance of its
     procedures in August 1995.
  
     - The General Accounting Office report "Information on Special
     Account Funds at Selected Park Units, National Park Service"
     (No. GAO/RCED-96-90), issued in May 1996, contained background
     and financial information for each of eight different types of
     funds, including those from concessioner improvement accounts,
     received by park units that were not subject to the annual
     appropriations process. The report did not contain any
     recommendations.

     FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  
     A. IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT PROJECTS
  
     Overall, we concluded that the projects funded by concessioner
     improvement accounts enhanced visitor facilities in the parks.
     Without concessioner improvement account funds, many of the new
     park facilities may not have been built and many of the
     historical structures in the parks may have deteriorated
     further. However, we found that the Park Service had not
     provided clear, sufficient, and timely guidance to ensure that
     account funds were used appropriately and had allowed
     concessioners to use these funds before the procedures were
     issued. Although the major concession contracts at four of the
     five parks we reviewed and the Park Service concession
     improvement account procedures issued in August 1995 state that
     account funds were to be used for improvements that "directly
     support concession operations," neither the contracts nor the
     procedures adequately define the term "directly support
     concession operations" or provide sufficient guidance on the
     appropriate uses of account funds. We also found that the
     procedures did not provide sufficient guidance on cost-sharing
     arrangements for projects which benefited both the concessioner
     and the Park Service. Further, the Park Service did not amend
     existing concession contracts that contained provisions which
     were in conflict with the new procedures and did not enforce
     concessioner compliance with contract provisions. As a result,
     concessioner improvement account funds were used or planned for
     (1) projects that did not directly support concession operations
     or that benefited both the Park Service and concessioners and
     would have been appropriate for cost sharing ($17.5 million),
     (2) expenditures that related to concession operations but that
     would not be considered proper uses of the funds under the new
     procedures ($1.2 million), and (3) capital improvement projects
     for which the concessioner was improperly granted a possessory
     interest ($823,000). Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient
     guidance, there is little assurance that improvement account
     funds will be used appropriately and consistently throughout the
     Park Service. In addition, we identified one concessioner that
     did not meet its capital improvement program expenditure
     requirement by about $100,000.
  
     Concessioner Improvement Account Procedures
  
     The Park Service allowed the parks to establish concessioner
     improvement accounts and to initiate projects before it
     established procedures for the use of these accounts. At least
     35 of the 40 concessioner improvement accounts were established
     before the August 1995 procedures were issued. Although the
     major concession contracts at four of the five parks we reviewed
     state that capital account funds can be used only for projects
     that "directly support concession operations," we concluded that
     the contracts did not clearly define "directly support" or
     provide sufficient guidance on the appropriate uses of account
     funds to address the various circumstances surrounding account
     expenditures or contain provisions for cost-sharing
     arrangements. As a result, concessioner improvement account
     funds of $17.4 million and $120,000 were used for some projects
     at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Mount Rushmore
     National Memorial, respectively, that, in our opinion, did not
     "directly support concession operations," benefited both
     concessioner and park operations and may have been appropriate
     for cost sharing, and/or may not have been considered proper
     uses of account funds under the new procedures. For example, at
     Glen Canyon, improvement account funds were used for projects
     such as comfort stations; a visitor center; shelters;
     landscaping; aerial mapping; water quality studies; road chip
     sealing; directional signs; the elimination of drainage
     problems; a school building for children of concessioner and
     Park Service employees; and several projects which benefited
     both concessioner and Park Service operations such as sewer
     system upgrades, water storage and distribution systems,
     electrical system improvements, boat ramps and related
     infrastructure, pedestrian trails, breakwaters, and road and
     parking lot expansion and paving. We also noted that Glen Canyon
     had planned to conduct similar projects after fiscal year 1995.
     At Mount Rushmore, improvement account funds were used for
     projects such as removing asbestos from an old concessioner
     building that was converted to park administrative offices,
     parking lot stairways, and a nature trail.
  
     In response to a February 1995 opinion and recommendation from
     the Office of the Solicitor, the Park Service issued procedures
     in August 1995 for administering concession improvement
     accounts. The procedures describe the types of projects and
     expenditures that are considered proper or improper uses of
     concessioner improvement accounts. Specifically, proper uses of
     capital accounts include projects that involve the
     "rehabilitation or construction of new facilities used directly
     to house or otherwise provide services to park visitors (such as
     hotels, restaurants, gift shops, and service stations) as well
     as concessioner support facilities necessary for the functioning
     of the primary visitor facilities." The procedures also
     authorize the use of these accounts on a shared-cost basis to
     provide infrastructure facilities that serve both Park Service
     and concessioner visitor facilities. Improper uses of capital
     accounts, according to the procedures, include projects that do
     not "directly support concession operations" and that are for
     general park purposes such as resource protection and ancillary
     Park Service management. These projects would include
     constructing or repairing Government visitor facilities, such as
     visitor centers, interpretative facilities, entrance stations,
     restrooms, roads, and parking lots, as well as Government
     support facilities, such as employee housing, maintenance
     buildings, administrative buildings, and school buildings.
  
     We concluded, however, that the August 1995 procedures did not
     provide clear and sufficient guidance on the use of improvement
     account funds. For example, although the procedures state that
     the construction or repair of facilities such as parking lots,
     roads, or school buildings is not a proper use of improvement
     account funds, there may be instances where such facilities
     "directly support concession operations" or support both the
     concessioner and the Park Service and may be appropriate for
     cost sharing. Further, although the procedures cite instances
     where cost-sharing arrangements may be appropriate, the
     procedures did not provide sufficient guidance on establishing
     such arrangements, including methodologies for allocating costs.
  
     At the time of our review, the respective park managers indicated
     that they believed that concessioner improvement accounts could
     be used for construction or rehabilitation projects which
     directly affected park visitors, whether or not the projects
     enhanced the concession facilities. They also indicated that
     several of the projects funded prior to the procedures
     represented an appropriate use of the accounts under the new
     procedures. As such, we believe that the Park Service needs to
     provide additional guidance in its procedures regarding the
     proper uses of improvement account funds.
  
     Concession Contract Provisions
  
     Prior to the issuance of the August 1995 procedures, concessioner
     improvement account funds of about $1.2 million were used or
     planned for purposes that would not be considered proper uses of
     the funds under the new procedures. In addition, the Park
     Service did not attempt to amend the contracts to conform to the
     procedures in those instances in which the concession contracts
     included provisions that conflicted with the new procedures.
     Examples of conflicting contract provisions and improper uses of
     funds are as follows:
  
     - The Park Service's procedures state that concessioner
     improvement accounts "are not to be used to pay or otherwise
     reimburse" Government appropriations accounts. Because the Park
     Service did not issue guidelines in a timely manner, we found
     that concessioner improvement account funds were used before
     issuance of the 1995 procedures to reimburse Government
     appropriations for services costing about $127,000 that were
     provided by the Park Service to concessioners as follows:
  
     -- Both the Wahweap and the Uplake concession contracts at Glen
     Canyon permitted the improvement account to be used to reimburse
     the Park Service for "unprogrammed expenses of the permitted
     activity incurred as a result of the account, not to exceed 5
     percent of total account expenditures." For 1995, more than
     $19,000 was reimbursed from the improvement account to the Park
     Service for unprogrammed expenses related to improvement account
     projects at Glen Canyon. Glen Canyon officials stated that the
     unprogrammed expenses represented additional personnel services,
     travel, equipment, and other costs that would not have been
     incurred by the Park Service had there not been an improvement
     account.
  
     -- Concessioner improvement account funds were used at Mount
     Rushmore and Yellowstone to reimburse the Park Service for
     expenses incurred, although the concession contracts did not
     provide for reimbursement of these expenses. At Mount Rushmore,
     about $67,000 was reimbursed from the improvement account in
     1994 to the Park Service for the salary of an on-site
     construction inspector (a Park Service employee) hired under a
     term appointment to inspect the construction of the new
     concessioner restaurant and gift shop buildings. At Yellowstone,
     improvement account funds were used to reimburse the Park
     Service approximately $41,000 in 1994 and 1995 for costs related
     to concessions management support activities, such as
     engineering and project coordination.
  
     - The Park Service's procedures state that trust accounts are not
     permissible for the deposit and expenditure of improvement
     account funds and that improvement account funds cannot be used
     by concessioners to pay income taxes on interest earned from
     deposits made to the accounts. Exhibit G to the Yosemite
     concession contract provided for the creation of a trust
     arrangement for the deposit and expenditure of capital
     improvement account funds and government improvement account
     funds. The trust agreements, which were established to assist
     the concessioner in administering the improvement accounts, were
     executed on November 15, 1993. Amendment 1 to the trust
     agreements, effective on October 1, 1994, authorized the trustee
     to use funds from the capital improvement and government
     improvement accounts to pay tax liabilities on the earnings of
     the accounts. The concessioner used the trust agreements for the
     deposit and expenditure of capital improvement funds and
     government improvement account funds and paid almost $31,000 in
     trust account administration fees for 1994 and 1995, including
     about $12,400 that was paid after the issuance of the Park
     Service's August 1995 procedures. The concessioner also used
     about $27,500 during 1994 and 1995 from the capital improvement
     account to pay taxes on the interest earnings of the accounts,
     including about $240 that was paid after the issuance of the new
     procedures.
  
     - The Park Service's procedures state that concessioner
     improvement account funds may not be used to acquire personal
     property. We found that concessioner improvement account funds
     were used at Yellowstone before the August 1995 procedures were
     issued to purchase a tour boat during 1994, at a cost of
     $283,000, as permitted by Exhibit D of the concession contract.
     However, we also noted that similar purchases with concessioner
     improvement account funds, such as a new boat for the Bridge Bay
     Marina ($125,000), other specialized vehicles ($40,000), and
     computer hardware and software development ($35,000), were
     included in Yellowstone's list of approved projects that was
     revised after the procedures were issued.
  
     - The Park Service's procedures state that concessioner
     improvement account funds are not to be used for redecorating
     and periodic recarpeting of facilities or for furniture. We
     found that prior to the issuance of the August 1995 procedures,
     concessioner improvement account funds of about $485,000 were
     used or planned for these purposes as follows:
  
     -- At Yellowstone, about $302,000 was expended from the
     improvement account, primarily during 1994, for the purchase of
     mattresses ($196,000), furniture ($99,000), and furniture
     refinishing ($7,000). Similar projects, such as additional
     mattress purchases, recarpeting, and floor refinishing, had been
     approved for 1996, after the Park Service's procedures were
     issued, at an estimated cost of $135,000.
  
     -- At Glacier National Park, several recarpeting projects that
     were approved before the procedures had been issued were under
     way or had been completed at various concession facilities
     throughout Glacier at an estimated total cost of $48,000.
     However, during our audit, staff at Glacier stated that they
     would no longer approve the funding of recarpeting projects from
     the improvement account.
  
     In addition, we noted that the major concession contract at
     Yosemite, which became effective on October 1, 1993, contains a
     provision (Section 10(b)(1)) which states that "ten (10%)
     percent of the funds deposited in the [capital improvement] fund
     shall be expended by the Concessioner as directed by the
     Secretary for construction of facilities necessary for visitor
     enjoyment of the area [park] even though such facilities do not
     directly support concession operations required or authorized
     under this contract." We found that no improvement account funds
     had been expended as of June 1996 at Yosemite for such projects,
     although about $407,000 (10 percent of 1995 deposits) was
     available for that purpose based on the provisions of the
     concession contract.
  
     To ensure that concessioner improvement account funds are used
     for appropriate purposes, we believe that the Park Service
     should review each concession contract to identify any
     provisions that are inconsistent with the August 1995 procedures
     and initiate action to modify those contracts accordingly when
     the opportunity occurs. In the interim, the Park Service should
     not approve concessioner requests to use concessioner
     improvement account funds for purposes that are prohibited by
     the procedures or concession contracts.
  
     Possessory Interest
  
     The Park Service's procedures state that concessioners will not
     accrue any possessory interest in improvements made with
     concessioner improvement account funds. The concession contract
     for Mount Rushmore required the concessioner to complete a
     construction and improvement program at a cost not to exceed $10
     million, including the construction of a concession facility, a
     dormitory for concessioner employees, and support facilities. A
     December 1993 amendment to the contract specified that in lieu
     of paying franchise fees, the concessioner would deposit 5
     percent of gross receipts into a concessioner improvement
     account for use on other capital improvement projects. This
     amendment also specified that the concessioner was to have no
     ownership or possessory interest in improvements made with
     improvement account funds. In anticipation of an estimated $2
     million cost overrun on the construction and improvement
     program, the Park Service orally instructed the concessioner in
     September 1994 to stop making deposits to the concessioner
     improvement account and to use the balance in the account to
     help fund the cost overrun. However, an amendment to the
     concession contract to document the oral instructions was not
     executed until December 1995, after the Park Service's
     procedures were issued. The amendment was retroactive to the
     period prior to August 31, 1995, and, contrary to the concession
     contract and Park Service procedures, granted the concessioner a
     possessory interest in the improvements constructed with monies
     accumulated in the improvement account up to that time. We
     determined that the value of this possessory interest was at
     least $823,000. This amount consisted of the $500,000
     improvement account balance at September 16, 1994, and an
     additional $323,000 that would have been deposited into the
     improvement account had the concessioner continued to make
     deposits through August 31, 1995, as required by the concession
     contract.
  
     Other Contract Provisions
  
     The concession contract at Glacier requires the concessioner to
     undertake capital improvements by expending annually "not less
     than one (1%) percent of gross receipts . . . from the previous
     year on alterations, additions, improvements, and new facilities
     of the character normally considered to be capital improvements
     under generally accepted accounting principles." These projects
     were to be in addition to those funded under Glacier's
     concessioner improvement account.
  
     We determined that the concessioner did not meet its capital
     improvement program expenditure requirement by about $100,000
     for 1994 and 1995. After our fieldwork was completed, the
     Superintendent sent a July 17, 1996, letter informing the
     concessioner of this spending shortfall and requested that the
     concessioner make up the $100,000 deficiency in 1996 and 1997.
     The concessioner did not agree that a spending shortfall existed
     and said that the issue would be researched and appropriate
     action would be taken. Park Service officials said that in
     subsequent negotiations, the concessioner agreed, effective in
     fiscal year 1997, to submit a list of capital improvement
     projects for Park Service approval before funds are expended to
     ensure that all projects are legitimate capital improvements.
     Park Service officials also said that the concessioner did not
     agree to spend an additional $100,000 on capital improvements as
     compensation for the 1994 and 1995 spending shortfall because
     the Park Service had not acted in a timely manner to notify the
     concessioner of the capital expenditure deficiency. We disagree
     with the concessioner's position and believe that the Park
     Service should require that the concessioner spend an additional
     $100,000 on approved capital improvements, thereby fulfilling
     its contractual requirement for 1994 and 1995 capital
     improvement expenditures.
  
     Recommendations
  
     We recommend that the Director, National Park Service:
  
     1. Revise the concessioner improvement account procedures to
     include clear and sufficient guidance on the use of funds in
     these accounts, including a clear definition of the term
     "directly support concession operations," and on cost-sharing
     arrangements for projects that benefit both the concessioner and
     the Park Service. These guidelines should include more specific
     examples of the types of projects that are appropriate uses of
     these funds and the types of projects that are appropriate for
     cost sharing.
  
     2. Review each existing concession contract to identify any
     provisions which are inconsistent with concession improvement
     account procedures and initiate action to amend those contracts
     accordingly. In the interim, the Park Service should not approve
     concessioner requests to use improvement account funds for
     purposes that are prohibited by the procedures. Regarding the
     concession contracts we reviewed, the Park Service should:
  
     - Amend the Mount Rushmore contract to specify that the
     concessioner will not have possessory interest in facilities
     constructed with improvement account funds.
  
     - Amend the Glen Canyon contract to prohibit the use of
     improvement account funds for reimbursements to Government
     appropriations accounts.
  
     - Amend the Yellowstone contract to eliminate equipment
     purchases as a proper use of improvement account funds and
     ensure that improvement account funds are no longer used to
     reimburse Government appropriations.
  
     - Amend the Yosemite contract to eliminate the provision that 10
     percent of capital improvement account fund deposits can be used
     for projects which do not directly support concession
     operations, require the concessioner to terminate the trust
     agreements for the deposit and expenditure of improvement
     account funds, and ensure that improvement account funds are no
     longer used to pay the concessioner's income taxes.
  
     - Ensure that the concessioner at Glacier complies with the
     contract requirements and require the concessioner to spend an
     additional $100,000 on approved capital improvements.
  
     National Park Service Response and Office of Inspector General
     Reply
  
     In the January 21, 1998, response (Appendix 3) to the draft
     report from the Director, National Park Service, the Park
     Service partially concurred with Recommendation 1 and did not
     fully address Recommendation 2. Based on the response, we
     request that the Park Service reconsider its responses to both
     recommendations, which are unresolved (see Appendix 4).
  
     Recommendation 1. Nonconcurrence.
  
     National Park Service Response. The Park Service disagreed with
     our finding concerning the use of improvement account funds,
     stating that each contract which was examined during the audit
     was executed prior to the current procedures and that therefore
     "any comparison would be ineffectual." The Park Service also
     stated that in each instance, expenditures made with improvement
     account funds were consistent with the contract and therefore
     appropriate. Specifically, the Park Service stated that the
     landscaping, aerial mapping, road chip sealing, and elimination
     of drainage at Glen Canyon National Park "were all done in
     conjunction with concession operations" and that the
     construction of the stairway and nature trail at Mount Rushmore
     "was in direct support of the concession operation" and was
     necessary "to provide access to the existing concessioner
     facility during the construction of the new concession facility
     initiated in August 1994."
  
     Despite its disagreement with the finding,  the Park Service
     agreed to revise its procedures "to more clearly define the term
     'directly support concession operations,'" stating, "Though our
     requirement that improvement accounts can only be used on
     facilities that directly support concession operations has not
     caused a problem thus far, we can see where this could be open
     to a variety of interpretations."
  
     The Park Service, however, did not agree to revise its procedures
     to include clear and sufficient guidance for cost-sharing
     arrangements. The Park Service stated that in drafting its
     guidelines, it "did not plan to share construction costs with
     concession improvement account projects because of the
     unpredictability of Federal funds and the difficulty of melding
     a private project with a procurement project." The Park Service
     further stated that "if the time comes that cost sharing becomes
     a necessity, we will develop guidelines to address this issue."
  
     Office of Inspector General Reply. Although the Park Service
     agreed to revise its procedures to more clearly define the term
     "directly support concession operations," its comments on the
     audit finding raise concerns regarding what it considers to be
     appropriate uses of concessioner improvement account funds. As
     discussed in the report, the concession contracts at four of the
     five parks we reviewed required that concessioner improvement
     account funds be used for projects which "directly support
     concession operations," which is also required under the new
     procedures. We disagree with the statement that all of the
     projects we reviewed were consistent with that requirement. For
     example, several of the projects we reviewed clearly did not
     directly benefit concession operations, such as the construction
     of a building at Glen Canyon to house fire and ambulance
     equipment, detention halls, associated offices (which support
     Park Service functions and not those of the concessioner), and
     the removal of asbestos from an old building at Mt. Rushmore
     that was converted to park administrative offices. Other
     projects appeared to benefit primarily Park Service operations,
     with some benefits to the concession operations, such as the
     temporary stairway at Mt. Rushmore, which was necessary to reach
     the monument viewing area from the parking area and the
     concessions facility in the area.
  
     Regarding the statement that "any comparison [to the new
     procedures] would be ineffectual" because the projects we
     reviewed were executed before the current procedures were
     issued, the primary purposes of our review were (1) to determine
     whether concessioner improvement accounts were used in
     accordance with the provisions of the concession contracts (both
     the contracts and the new procedures required that funds be used
     for projects that "directly support concession operations"); (2)
     to determine the effect of the Park Service's delay in issuing
     those procedures; and (3) to determine whether the new
     procedures were adequate to address the various circumstances
     surrounding the expenditures of concession improvement account
     funds, as requested by the Park Service. For example, based on
     our review of these projects, we believe that the Park Service
     needs to clarify its guidance concerning the use of improvement
     account funds for projects that support primarily Government
     operations rather than concessioner operations. Specifically,
     the procedures need to address the issue of whether it is
     appropriate to use these funds for projects such as utility
     systems, parking lots, or boat ramps when only a small
     percentage of the use relates to the concession operations. In
     addition, some park managers indicated that concessioner
     improvement accounts could be used for construction or
     rehabilitation projects which directly affected park visitors,
     whether or not the projects enhanced concessioner facilities.
     This issue needs to be clearly addressed in the procedures.
  
     Regarding cost sharing, the basis for the Park Service's comment
     that in drafting its guidelines "it did not plan to share
     construction costs with concession improvement account projects"
     appears to indicate that projects that also benefit the Park
     Service will be fully funded by the improvement accounts. The
     Park Service's procedures clearly recognize the potential for
     cost sharing "of a joint NPS [National Park
     Service]/concessioner infrastructure facility, such as where the
     concessioner joins NPS in the construction of a sewer plant
     which serves both NPS installations and concessioner visitor
     facilities." Furthermore, the Park Service did not include a
     detailed explanation in its response to support its decision not
     to consider cost sharing "because of the unpredictability of
     Federal funds and the difficulty of melding a private project
     with a procurement project." Because a large number of projects
     we reviewed benefited both concessioner and Park Service
     operations, we believe that this issue needs to be fully
     addressed in the guidelines. Accordingly, we consider the
     recommendation unresolved.
  
     Recommendation 2. Nonconcurrence.
  
     National Park Service Response. The Park Service stated that it
     "cannot unilaterally amend concession contracts" to conform to
     its current procedures but that it would attempt to amend the
     contracts during the contract reconsideration process. The Park
     Service further stated that three of the contracts will have
     expired by September 2001 and that as these contracts expire, it
     will "issue new contracts which will conform to our improvement
     account procedures."
  
     In regard to amending the Mt. Rushmore contract, the Park Service
     stated that additional requirements for capital improvements
     were placed on the concessioner which were not anticipated when
     the concessioner's original obligations were established. The
     Park Service further stated that because of these additional
     obligations, it allowed the concessioner to have a possessory
     interest in a portion of this contribution to provide the
     concessioner, in accordance with the Concessions Policy Act of
     1965, "a reasonable opportunity for a profit commensurate with
     the capital invested and the obligations assumed."
  
     In regard to requiring the concessioner at Yellowstone to deposit
     $65,000 into its concessioner improvement account fund because
     funds were used for maintenance activities, the Park Service
     stated that the expenditures were for resource management and
     environmental projects but not maintenance and that it added
     these responsibilities to the concessioner's maintenance plan
     "only to make it clear that these would not be NPS [National
     Park Service] responsibilities."
  
     In regard to ensuring that the concessioner at Glacier spends an
     additional $100,000 on approved capital improvements, the Park
     Service stated that while the concessioner "had clearly expended
     in excess of this amount [1 percent of gross receipts] every
     year on capitalized items, the dispute centered on whether or
     not these items could be considered improvements." The Park
     Service further stated that it had reached a settlement with the
     concessioner that expenditures should be approved by the Park
     Service in advance and that the concessioner had met the minimum
     expenditure requirement for fiscal year 1997.
  
     Office of Inspector General Reply. Although the Park Service
     agreed to attempt to amend the contracts when the opportunity
     occurs and to ensure that the new contracts conform to its
     improvement account procedures, it did not address the
     recommendation as it related to disapproving concessioner
     requests to use improvement account funds for purposes that are
     prohibited by the procedures.
  
     In regard to the possessory interest issue at Mt. Rushmore, the
     Park Service did not include sufficient information in its
     response to support its position that it was necessary not only
     to allow the concessioner to use these funds to meet its
     financial obligations under the contract but also to grant the
     concessioner possessory interest in these facilities in order
     for the concessioner to make a reasonable profit. In addition,
     the Park Service did not specifically address amending the
     concession contract to specify that the concessioner will not
     have possessory interest in future facilities constructed with
     improvement account funds.
  
     In regard to requiring the concessioner at Yellowstone to deposit
     $65,000 into the concessioner improvement account fund, the
     projects in question were included in the concessioner's
     maintenance plan and therefore were the concessioner's
     responsibility. However, since the Park Service authorized the
     concessioner to use improvement account funds for these
     projects, it would not be appropriate to require the
     concessioner to reimburse the improvement account at this time.
     As such, we have not included the finding and recommendation in
     the final report.
  
     In regard to requiring the concessioner at Glacier to spend an
     additional $100,000 on approved capital improvements, the
     actions identified in the response are adequate to ensure that
     future expenditures of capital improvement account funds are
     proper. However, the Park Service did not specifically identify
     the basis for its decision not to require the concessioner to
     spend an additional $100,000 on approved capital improvement
     projects to meet its contractual requirement. We do not believe
     that the Park Service's lack of timeliness in notifying the
     concessioner of the deficit is an appropriate basis for waiving
     the requirement.
  
     Based on the Park Service's response, we consider the
     recommendation unresolved.
  
     B. DEPOSITS TO CONCESSIONER IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNTS
  
     Two of the five concessioners we reviewed made improper
     deductions from their recorded gross receipts in determining the
     amounts to be deposited into their concessioner improvement
     accounts. Section 9 of the concession contracts defines gross
     receipts as the total amount received or realized by the
     concessioner from all sales of services, accommodations,
     materials, and other merchandise less specified exclusions.
     Typical contract exclusions from gross receipts include receipts
     from the sale of genuine United States Indian and native
     handicrafts; intracompany earnings on charges to other
     departments; charges for employees' meals, lodging, and
     transportation; cash discounts on sales and purchases; and
     sales, excise, and gasoline taxes. However, Park Service
     personnel did not adequately analyze the exclusions made by the
     concessioners. As a result, we estimated that for 1994 and 1995,
     two concessioners should have deposited additional funds
     totaling about $124,800, excluding interest, into their
     concessioner improvement accounts (see Appendix 1).
  
     We found that the concessioner at Glen Canyon deducted credit
     card fees and freight charges from gross receipts in determining
     the amounts to be deposited into the construction set-aside
     account. Also, a concessioner at Glacier National Park excluded
     sales to employees from gross receipts in determining the
     amounts to be deposited into the capital improvement account.
     Section 9 of the concession contracts (franchise fees) does not
     permit these exclusions and deductions from gross receipts;
     however, Park Service personnel did not adequately analyze
     revenue exclusions to ensure that concessioners deposited funds
     in accordance with the terms of the concession contracts, as
     required by Park Service Directive 90-7, as amended. As a
     result, for 1994 and 1995, concessioners did not deposit about
     $124,800, excluding interest, into a set-aside account at Glen
     Canyon ($119,500) and into an improvement account at Glacier
     ($5,300).
  
     Park officials took prompt action to address these issues after
     we brought them to their attention. Specifically, the
     Superintendent at Glen Canyon, in a July 17, 1996, letter,
     informed the concessioner of the improper exclusions and
     instructed the concessioner to (1) stop the exclusions that were
     not identified as allowable in the concessioner contracts,
     beginning with the next monthly deposit; (2) submit records
     showing the itemized exclusions taken in calculating deposits
     from the inception of the program in 1987 through the current
     year; and (3) submit a proposal on how to resolve the issue for
     all previous years in which deposits were incorrect. Also, the
     Concessions Manager at Glacier, in a July 15, 1996, letter,
     informed the concessioner that the exclusion of sales to
     employees from the gross receipts was not appropriate and
     requested the concessioner to deposit about $5,300 plus interest
     into the capital improvement account. On August 5, 1996, the
     concessioner deposited $5,401 into the account to correct the
     error.
  
     Recommendation
  
     We recommend that the Director, National Park Service, ensure
     that park personnel sufficiently analyze all exclusions from
     gross receipts and confirm that deposits to concessioner
     improvement accounts are made in accordance with the provisions
     of the concession contracts.
  
     National Park Service Response and Office of Inspector General
     Reply
  
     In the January 21, 1998, response (Appendix 3) to the draft
     report from the Director, National Park Service, the Park
     Service agreed with the recommendation. Based on the response
     and additional information provided by the Park Service, we
     consider the recommendation resolved and implemented (see
     Appendix 4).
  
                             APPENDIX 1
  
          CLASSIFICATION OF MONETARY AMOUNTS
  
  
                 Finding Area     
  
     Potential   Additional Revenues
  
     Other Contract Provisions $100,000
  
     Deposits to Concession Improvement Accounts 124,800
  
     Total $224,800
  
                    SITES VISITED, TYPES OF ACCOUNTS
     REVIEWED, AND CONCESSIONER DEPOSITS AND EXPENDITURES
  
              Concession                  Contract        
     1994                                 1995                  Site        
     Number            Type of Account            Deposits
     Expenditures   Deposits Expenditures
  
     Mount Rushmore National Memorial CC-MORU-001-93     
     Capital$289,290  $194,470  *          0
  
     Glacier National Park CC-GLAC-002-81              Capital
     Improvement    1,067,452    348,892    $466,572    $117,592  
     Glen Canyon National CC-GLCA-003-69               Construction
     Set Aside   2,679,281   1,841,513   2,877,034   4,825,362
     Recreation Area  CC-GLCA-002-88               Capital
     Improvement202,103     0   1,255,713     20,760         CC-GLCA
     -002-88               Campground Improvement    38,310     1,500
     41,367     1,500 18 Yellowstone National Park       CC-YELL-077
     -91  Construction and Improvement    3,973,933   3,635,879
     4,148,186   4,318,362
  
     Yosemite National Park        CC-YOSE-004-93   Capital
     Improvement         4,029,832       0   4,071,390   1,491,364
     CC-YOSE-004-93 Government Improvement      222,756       
     35,945    222,756     82,772
  
         $12,502,957     $6,058,199  $13,083,018               $10,857,712
  
                      
  
     *The account was terminated effective August 31, 1995. No funds
     were deposited into the account by the concessioner in 1995, and
     the funds remaining in the account were to be used by the
     concessioner to pay for a portion of the construction cost
     overrun discussed in the "Possessory Interest" section of this
     report.  APPENDIX 2                           APPENDIX 4
  
     STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
  
     Finding/Recommendation     Reference
  
     Status
  
     Action Required
  
     A.1 Unresolved. Reconsider the recommendation. If concurrence is
     indicated, provide an action plan that includes target dates and
     titles of the officials responsible for implementation. If
     nonconcurrence is indicated, provide the reasons for
     nonconcurrence, including the basis for the Park Service's
     position that cost-sharing arrangements are not appropriate
     and/or feasible.
  
     A.2 Unresolved. Reconsider the recommendation with respect to
     the following: not approving concessioner requests to use
     account funds for purposes that are prohibited by the
     procedures, requiring the concessioner at Glacier to spend an
     additional $100,000 on approved projects, and amending the
     Glacier contract to specify that the concessioner will not have
     possessory interest in future projects funded by the improvement
     account. If concurrence is indicated, provide an action plan
     that includes target dates and titles of the officials
     responsible for implementation. If nonconcurrence is indicated,
     provide reasons for the nonconcurrence.
  
     B.1 Implemented. No further action is required.
  
     
    ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE OFFICE OF
    INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:

    Sending written documents to:                 



    Within the Continental United States
    
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General 
    1849 C Street,N.W.
    Mail Stop 5341
    Washington, D.C. 20240

    Calling:

    Our 24 hour
    Telephone HOTLINE
    1-800-424-5081 or
    (202) 208-5300
    
    TDD for hearing impaired                                                  
    (202) 208-2420 or
    1-800-354-0996



    Outside the Continental United States

    
    Caribbean Region
    
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General
    Eastern Division- Investigations
    1550 Wilson Boulevard
    Suite 410
    Arlington, Virginia 22209

    Calling:
    (703) 235-9221


    North Pacific Region

    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General
    North Pacific Region
    238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
    Suite 807, PDN Building
    Agana, Guam 96910

    
    Calling:
    (700) 550-7428 or 
    COMM 9-011-671-472-7279