Management Audit Committee Representative Randall Luthi, Chairman Senator Hank Coe, Vice Chairman
Senator April Brimmer Kunz Senator Grant Larson Senator Mike Massie Senator Carroll Miller Senator Bill Vasey
Representative Ross Diercks Representative Alan Jones Representative Tom Lockhart Representative Jane Warren
Report Staff Barbara J. Rogers Program Evaluation Manager
Polly Callaghan Program Evaluator
Kelley C. Pelissier Program Evaluator
Kimberley Taylor-Beer Program Evaluator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
State Parks and Historic Sites
Purpose The Management Audit Committee directed program evaluation staff to undertake an evaluation of the State Park and Historic Site Fee Program. The Committee asked if the fee program was operating at a net gain, how Wyoming’s fees compared to surrounding states, and if there were additional benefits the fee program could produce. Background The Division of State Parks and Historic Sites (SPHS) within the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources is responsible for operating Wyoming’s state parks and historic sites. W.S. 36-4-121 authorizes daily-use and camping fees at 16 SPHS locations that were phased in between 1991 and 2000. Before initiating the phase in, the Legislature studied the feasibility of collecting fees and conducted a pilot project. In order to enhance the fee program’s effectiveness, the Legislature also provided more seasonal law enforcement for parks and sites. Prior to 2000, all fee revenue was returned to the General Fund. Now, 80 percent of fee revenue goes to an enterprise account that pays for capital construction projects at the parks and sites, while 20 percent is returned to the General Fund.
The fee structure requires non-residents to pay higher fees than residents. It is a two-tiered system distinguishing between parks and sites. Parks charge each vehicle a daily-use fee and also collect camping fees. Historic sites do not collect camping fees but charge each visitor a daily-use fee. Annual permits for daily-use and camping override the two-tiered system by allowing unlimited use of all SPHS locations.
The fee program is carried out through a combination of seasonally-staffed fee stations at the busiest entrances, and honor-system canisters at less popular entrances. Some parks have stand-alone fee booths with drive-through lanes where visitors stop and pay. Historic sites typically have a staffed entrance at a visitor center or museum desk. Some locations rely entirely on canisters for fee collection. During its decade-long phase in, the fee program has undergone constant change. Further statutory changes will take effect in 2002. Results in Brief The SPHS fee program currently generates more in revenue than the general funds allocated for its operation. Additionally, through the enterprise account, SPHS will be able to enhance park and site recreational opportunities by improving capital facilities. However, the Legislature’s purposes for creating the fee program have resulted in a fee structure that differs from those in other states. While costs to residents have been minimized, fees have brought in less revenue than they might have. Further, the fee structure does not permit the flexibility that other states have in managing visitor use. Although the fee program has been beneficial, there are opportunities to make better use of it to manage overcrowding in some consistent high-use parks. Some of Wyoming’s parks are facing increasing pressure on their resources and will need greater ability to manage visitor use. The Legislature may wish to consider the National Park Service fee statute as a model: Congress sets upper limits for fees, thus preserving legislative intent, but also allows the agency some managerial flexibility to vary fees among locations. Principal Findings The fee program has operated at a net gain, meaning revenues exceed expenditures, both in aggregate and when the 16 locations collecting fees are considered individually. The program has netted nearly $2 million over the last four fiscal years. For calendar year 2000, the first year of full implementation, each of the 16 locations collecting fees operated the program at a net gain. SPHS has carefully managed fee collection to ensure these results, as the Legislature intended. However, the fee structure itself limits the ability of parks and sites to generate more revenue. Further, annual permits may be limiting revenue since visitors pay once for unlimited annual use. SPHS needs to gather more data regarding permits, compliance with fees, and fee program staffing to inform future management decisions. The Legislature’s primary purpose in authorizing a fee program has been to provide quality recreational experiences for residents. Several policies support this priority: residents pay lower fees than non- residents; annual permits provide a financial advantage for frequent users; and most fee revenues are dedicated to capital improvements in Wyoming parks and sites.
Statutes require that fees be uniform throughout the system, regardless of the popularity of, or amenities provided at, a particular park or site. In surrounding states, park systems use fee revenues for operations and can vary fees to reflect different camping experiences. We recommend the Legislature consider other states’ usage of fee structures and their potential for enhancing park management. The fee program’s primary direct benefit has been improved communication with visitors at those locations with staffed fee stations. Indirectly, through increased law enforcement, the program has helped protect SPHS natural resources.
Other states manage visitor camping use by connecting camping fees to designated campsites, something SPHS does not do. SPHS reports that overcrowding has led to resource degradation and the potential for compromised visitor safety in some consistent high-use parks. SPHS should develop a pilot project proposal for Glendo State Park, incorporating fee program changes and related park management approaches, to address problems resulting from overcrowding.
The Legislature and SPHS strategically developed the fee program, including an enterprise account that provides a stable source of capital funding to improve park facilities. This enables SPHS to do long-term planning and address maintenance backlogs that plague other park systems nationally. Further, SPHS pools fee revenues and distributes them according to system-wide priorities. The initial list of enterprise account projects is consistent with the capital improvements users have indicated they want. However, since such projects can increase operating costs, SPHS and the Legislature need to be vigilant that facility improvements remain proportionate to funding for operations. Agency Comments The agency is in agreement with the three recommendations made in the report. However, the director noted potential impacts from limiting camping to designated campsites, such as increased operating costs and decreased fee revenues. The agency also raised related policy issues, outside of the scope of this report but related to park and site fees, for further discussion with the Legislature.
The full report is available from the Wyoming Legislative Service Office and on the Wyoming Legislature’s website at legisweb.state.wy.us
Recommendation Locator Finding Recommendation Party Agency Number Summary Addressed Response
2 SPHS has operated the fee program at a net gain, but it can State Parks Agree improve the program by tracking and analyzing information and related to annual permit use and visitor compliance with fees. Historic Sites Division
3 As the state’s park system continues to evolve, the Legislature Legislature Agree may want to consider modifications to the fee structure to enable SPHS to better manage the parks and sites for higher quality recreational experiences.
4 SPHS should develop a pilot proposal that will allow it to better State Parks and Agree manage visitor camping at consistent high-use parks and seek Historic Sites legislative approval to implement it. Division
5 SPHS and the Legislature must keep capital facility Legislature Agree improvements made with enterprise account funds in proportion State Parks and with SPHS operations capacity. Historic Sites Division
INTRODUCTION
Scope and Methodology
Scope
W.S. 28-8-107(b) authorizes the Legislative Service Office to conduct program evaluations, performance audits, and analyses of policy alternatives. Generally, the purpose of such research is to provide a base of knowledge from which policymakers can make informed decisions.
In October 2000 the Management Audit Committee directed staff to undertake a review of the State Parks and Historic Sites (SPHS) fee program. The fee program is established by W.S. 36-4-121, which authorizes daily-use and camping fees at 16 SPHS locations. The Committee requested an analysis focusing on the following questions:
How are the fee collection sites operating individually, and as a whole? How do the fees charged in Wyoming compare with surrounding states? How will revenue from the statutorily created enterprise account be used? What have been the results of the policy the Legislature has established? Are there additional benefits the fee program could produce?
Methodology
This evaluation was conducted according to statutory requirements and professional standards and methods for governmental audits. The research was carried out from January through March 2001. In order to compile basic information about the fee program, we reviewed relevant statutes, statutory history, budget documents, training manuals, and other internal documents. We also reviewed professional literature about park management.
We surveyed the superintendents of the parks and sites to learn their views about the fee program. We conducted extensive interviews with SPHS officials both in Cheyenne and around the state, and reviewed visitor comments and complaints covering several years. To gather information on the revenues and expenses of the fee program, we worked with SPHS staff and the accounting office in the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources. We contacted officials from six surrounding states to obtain information about their fee programs. Finally, we visited one state park in order to understand the context for fee collection but, because our research was conducted during the off-season, we did not conduct further field visits.
Acknowledgements
The Legislative Service Office expresses appreciation to those who assisted in this research, especially to the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources and its personnel throughout the state and the many other government employees who contributed their expertise. We also thank the PCR Commission members and members of park and site booster groups whom we interviewed for this project.
CHAPTER 1
Background
With more Americans seeking recreation in state and national parks, the parks industry is experiencing continued growth. Visitation at other states’ parks has been increasing, and visitation for Wyoming’s state parks and historical sites has outpaced the growth of park systems nationally: over the past ten years, Wyoming’s visitation increased 31 percent. This growth has placed more pressure on state government to manage and protect Wyoming’s state parks and historic sites.
SPHS Administers Wyoming’s
Fee Program
Wyoming’s state parks and historic sites are administered by the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources (SPACR) in the Division of State Parks and Historic Sites (SPHS). The Legislature created SPACR in 1999 when it reorganized the former Department of Commerce. SPHS is responsible for the operations and maintenance of state parks and historic sites, including administering the state park fee program.
Under W.S. 36-4-101, the Governor, with advice and consent of the Senate, appoints the nine members of the Parks and Cultural Resources Commission (PCR Commission). The PCR Commission’s purpose is to provide informed guidance and consultation to SPACR, and to be an advocate for the public.
In the FY99-00 biennium, the Legislature authorized SPHS to expend $12.9 million. Of that amount, $9.8 million, primarily in general funds, was for Parks and Sites program administration as well as operations and maintenance for the individual parks and sites. Federal funds from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) grant are a source of matching monies for public outdoor recreation development and improvements. Wyoming communities as well as SPHS receive L&WCF funds, with SPHS administering the grants.
Figure 1: Authorized Budget for Parks and Sites
FY99-00 Category Amount Administration $1,583,900 L&WCF Grants $400,000 Field Operations $7,850,414 Total for Parks and Sites Program $9,834,314
Source: SPACR
Evolution of Wyoming’s Fee Program
The Legislature first established fees for state parks in 1973 when it authorized the Wyoming Recreation Commission to offer for sale “bucking horse” permits that allowed the occupants of vehicles displaying them to camp in state parks. At the same time, the Legislature established a nightly fee for camping in state parks.
Other than for changes in permit and camping fee prices in 1988, the fee program remained unchanged until 1991, by which time, the agency estimated only 25 to 30 percent of visitors were paying the camping fees. This prompted SPHS to begin a systematic effort, lasting nearly a decade, to develop and extend the fee program. Joining SPHS were legislators concerned about visitor control problems at Guernsey State Park, who proposed access fees as a solution.
In 1991, the Legislature took the first of several steps that led to the creation of the SPHS fee structure as it exists today. One of the initial steps was funding a study on the feasibility of collecting entrance fees at all parks and sites. The “Wyoming State Park Fee Study” was a comprehensive study of park fee collection from a recreation planning perspective. This study formed the foundation for the fee program the Legislature subsequently established. The study also determined that, by establishing a system of staffed fee stations and self-service honor stations, or canisters, a fee program could be operated at a net gain.
Second, the Legislature funded a season-long pilot program in 1991 “to collect access control fees at Guernsey State Park, to ensure payment of user fees for park access, and to ensure efficient management and controlled utilization of park facilities.” Based on the success of the pilot program and the information in the fee study, SPHS and the PCR Commission recommended that SPHS move forward to collect entrance fees on a permanent basis at many parks and sites. Thus began a phased approach to implementing an extended fee program at 16 SPHS locations.
Three Phases of Fee Program Implementation The Legislature went on to approve a series of statutory changes that eventually implemented a new fee program at parks and sites throughout the state. The first phase occurred in 1992, when legislators established the requirement that visitors pay entrance fees at several parks and two historic sites for part of the year. The legislation also established camping fees at several state parks and one recreation area, as opposed to authorizing camping fees at all state parks as had been the case. In 1993, during the second phase, the Legislature added two state parks and another historic site to those requiring entrance permits.
The Legislature approved the final phase of the fee program in 1999, to become effective in January 2000. This legislation added the final group of parks and sites to the group requiring entrance permits. See Appendix B for the dates of fee implementation at specific locations. The legislation changed the name “entrance fee” to “daily use fee” to more accurately describe the fee requirement. The 1999 fee structure changes also extended the daily use fee throughout the calendar year.
The same legislation created an enterprise account, which allows SPHS to use 80 percent of fee revenue for capital construction, with the remaining 20 percent going to the General Fund. This represented a significant change for SPHS funding and planning because, since the fees were first established in 1973, all fee revenue had been deposited to the General Fund.
At every phase of the fee program, the Legislature provided funding for the initial costs of constructing fee booths, purchasing equipment, and for personnel. For all the parks and sites, the construction and equipment costs were one-time expenses of approximately $700,000, while personnel costs are recurring costs. From the inception of the fee program through July 2000, a total of $5.2 million in SPHS fee revenues has been collected. Most of this amount was returned to the General Fund, as statute required, prior to the establishment of the enterprise account.
State Parks and Historic Sites
SPHS has varying responsibility for 36 properties, including 12 state parks, 21 historic sites, 2 archaeological sites, and 1 recreation area. These properties extend over approximately 122,000 acres of both land and water. SPHS administers the fee program at 16 of these locations, including 9 state parks, 5 historic sites, 1 archaeological site, and one recreation area. The locations from which SPHS collects fees encompass 98 percent of total land and water acreage within the system. Two more SPHS properties charge fees, but statute authorizes other entities to manage them and receive the fees generated.
The 16 parks and historic sites from which SPHS collects fees are located in 12 of the state’s counties. Their locations vary from settings within city limits to more remote areas up to 35 miles from the nearest town. Visitors can easily access some SPHS locations by interstate highways or other major thoroughfares, while others are off less traveled state highways. Appendix B lists the 16 SPHS locations charging fees and the type of fees applicable to each.
State Owns Few SPHS Locations Collecting Fees The state, through SPHS, owns all of the historic sites from which it collects fees, but owns only one of the parks collecting fees, Edness Kimball Wilkins. The state also owns two parks that statute waives from the fee program, Bear River and Hot Springs, as well as another collecting fees under a statutorily authorized private contract, the Wyoming Territorial Prison State Park and Historic Site.
The largest water-based state parks from which SPHS collects fees, Buffalo Bill, Boysen, Keyhole, Guernsey, Glendo, and Seminoe, belong to the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). SPHS assumed responsibility for administering the lands and facilities at these reservoirs in a memorandum of understanding with Reclamation, in effect until 2017. Because the primary purpose for these reservoirs is to provide irrigation, flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, Reclamation retains control over the water levels.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (G&F) owns Medicine Lodge State Archaeological Site and Sinks Canyon State Park, and SPHS also operates them through a memorandum of understanding. G&F purchased these properties as wildlife habitat, using federal funds. This ownership places some restrictions on the type of fees SPHS can charge. Finally, the City of Cheyenne owns Curt Gowdy State Park, and a conservation district owns Hawk Springs State Recreation Area.
Parks and Sites Provide Varied Recreational and Educational Opportunities Most parks and sites offer predominantly outside activities, ranging from water sports to bird watching. Many state parks offer activities such as boating, fishing, picnicking, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Of the 16 locations for which SPHS charges fees, 10 allow camping, and 8 offer water sports such as boating, water skiing, and fishing. Some locations have unique features such as an archery range, a unique geological phenomenon, petroglyphs, or fine examples of Civilian Conservation Corp work. Historic sites provide educational interpretation opportunities at locations of historical prominence.
Visitation Differs Significantly Among SPHS Locations Among the parks and sites charging fees, visitation varies up to 97 percent between the state park with highest visitation and the historic site with the lowest. As a group, the parks offering water sports and camping have the highest visitation, while the sites offering historical interpretation have the lowest. The parks or sites offering water sports, but which are relatively isolated, have low visitation relative to the others in that group. However, one historical site located near an interstate had greater visitation in 2000 than a park offering camping and water sports located on a major thoroughfare to Yellowstone National Park. A day use park located near a large Wyoming city and an interstate had more visitors than three parks or sites that offer camping and water sports. Historic sites have primarily out- of state visitation. See appendix C on visitation.
Current Two-Tiered Fee Structure
The fee structure for state parks and historic sites is essentially a two- tiered system, with one level of fees applying to parks and other locations that offer camping, and a second level applying to historic sites. See Figure 2 for a summary of fees and Appendix A for related statutes. In the first tier, which includes state parks and the lone recreation area charging fees, daily use fees are required for each day of use and are assessed by vehicle. However, each person entering the parks on foot, bicycle or horseback must pay an individual daily use fee. Exceptions to daily use fees in this tier are the two SPHS-managed locations that belong to G&F, where ownership restrictions forbid such fees. All locations in the first tier that offer camping, including those owned by G&F, require camping fees. Visitors must pay the camping fee as well as the daily use fee for each night of camping.
The second tier of fees applies to historic sites. At these locations, no camping is available and visitors pay by the head for daily use. Visitors under the age of 18 are exempt from daily use fees at historic sites. As well, persons traveling on busses or in guided tours each pay a fee when they enter parks or sites.
A permit system essentially overrides the two-tier system. SPHS offers permits to residents for daily use and for camping. Purchase of both permits allows residents unlimited use of all SPHS locations with fees. SPHS also currently offers a non-resident daily use permit; those who purchase it have unlimited daily use of SPHS areas with fees. Permit holders may obtain a second vehicle permit for each permit they hold, allowing them to bring additional vehicles into the parks, sites, and areas without having to buy full-priced permits for them.
Figure 2: Fees for Residents and Non-Residents
Types of Fees Residents Non-Residents Daily Use Fee - Parks $2.00 $5.00/$4.00** Daily Use Fee - Historic Sites $1.00 $2.00 Annual Daily Use Permit $25.00* $40.00* Camping Permit (one night) $4.00 $9.00/$8.00** Annual Camping Permit $30.00 N/A/$60.00** Second Vehicle Annual Permit $5.00 $5.00
Source: LSO analysis of SPHS fee structure *Note: $5.00 discount if purchased between January 1 and February 1. **Note: The second numbers are recent changes, to become effective January 2002.
Fee Program Revenues
In addition to the two-tiers, Figure 2 illustrates another important aspect of the fee structure: it requires non-residents to pay higher fees than residents. LSO analyzed SPHS fee revenues for the year 2000 and found 59 percent of revenue was collected from out-of-state visitors, while 41 percent was collected from in-state visitors.
Further analysis revealed most fee revenues, 53 percent, were from daily-use and 47 percent were from camping. Most fees, 63 percent, are collected at staffed fee stations; 21 percent of fees are collected through permit sales and 16 percent through canisters.
We analyzed fee revenue by type of activity and found camping fees paid by out-of-state visitors generated the most revenue, with daily-use fees of in-state visitors generating the second highest amount. Figure 3 details this information.
Figure 3: SPHS Fee Revenues by Type of Activity Calendar Year 2000 Type of Activity Total Fees Percent of Total Camping In-State $201,006 15% Camping Out-of-State $430,740 32% Park Daily-Use In-State $343,813 26% Park Daily-Use Out-Of-State $296,530 22% Historic Sites In-State $10,055 1% Historic Sites Out-of State $64,154 5% Total $1,346,298 100%
Source: LSO analysis of SPHS data.
How the Fee Program
Currently Operates
At the 16 SPHS locations authorized to charge fees, the fee program is carried out through a combination of seasonally staffed pay stations at the busiest entrances, and canisters at less popular entrances. This approach is consistent with recommendations from the 1991 study on the feasibility of a fee program. Some locations have only one or two entrances and they can easily be controlled with staffed fee stations. Other locations have so many entrances that staffing them would not be economical; there, the use of self-pay canisters is necessary. A canister is a locked, heavy metal pipe structure set in concrete. Park personnel collect the fees left in canisters on a regular basis.
Parks and sites have different styles of staffed entrances, depending on individual circumstances. In some, staffed pay stations are stand-alone fee booths with drive-through lanes where visitors stop and pay fees. There are a total of 17 fee booths at 8 of the 16 locations collecting SPHS fees. Upon payment, visitors receive a receipt that serves as their use pass. Visitors with annual permits must stop at the pay stations at all locations, with the exception of Glendo which has a pass-through driving lane.
Another style of staffed entrance is a visitor center or museum desk; four historic sites have such entrances. Visitors enter on foot and stop to pay the required fee, while visitors with annual permits attached to their vehicle state they have a permit and are not charged. Sites with this type of entrance may typically intermingle fee collection with other duties associated with serving visitors. At these sites, fee collection staff are not as isolated as collectors in a booth. At both types of entrances, payment of fees is transacted through a cash register, with provisions for notifying law enforcement in an emergency.
Open hours for fee stations vary throughout the season, with longer hours of operations during peak visitation in the summer. When fee stations are not staffed, visitors put payments, under the honor system, into canisters located near the staffed pay stations.
Four locations have no staffed pay stations: Seminoe, Sinks Canyon, Hawk Springs, and Medicine Lodge. At these locations, visitors are trusted to fill out an envelope, enclose the correct amount of money, and place it in a canister.
Fee Collector and Fee Supervisor Duties Some fee collectors work exclusively with the fee program in shifts in fee booths. Fee booths are equipped with a cash register, air conditioning, a telephone, and a silent panic button that notifies the statewide law enforcement system.
Seasonal fee collectors work May through September, earning between $6.00 and $7.25 per hour. Fee collection involves transacting the fee payment process through a cash register, balancing at the end of the shift, and preparing shift reports for the fee supervisor. In addition, fee collectors are expected to be information liaisons with the public and must keep current on all information visitors would typically seek.
Fee supervisors train and schedule fee collectors, complete required reports for SPHS, and ensure that all revenue is accounted for using established procedures. They earn between $7.25 and $8.00 per hour; they typically work full-time during the summer season and as needed during the rest of the year. Not all locations have fee supervisors, in which case the superintendent serves in this capacity.
Law Enforcement Program Complements Fee Program To implement a more extensive fee program, SPHS officials determined, early in the process, that an enhanced law enforcement presence was needed in the parks. Enhancing law enforcement was seen as a means of encouraging payment of fees, or compliance. By the early 1990s, camping fees had long been in place, but without the ability to enforce them, SPHS had minimal compliance. Park maintenance employees were responsible for fee compliance as well as their normal duties, such as trash removal and routine facility and grounds maintenance. Since the establishment of the expanded fee program, some of the parks have employed seasonal park rangers, in part to ensure compliance with the fee program.
SPHS Fee Program Statute
Continues to Change
During the past decade, with the phasing-in of fees at 16 locations, the SPHS fee program has undergone constant change. The 2001 legislative session generated further statutory changes that will become effective in the year 2002: it approved a bill sponsored by the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee, [1] lowering the SPHS fee rates for non-residents to twice as much as resident fees.
This change was prompted by notification from the U.S. Department of the Interior that certain non-resident fees charged at Wyoming state parks were in conflict with L&WCF regulations. If Wyoming had failed
to adjust its fees to meet federal requirements, the state’s eligibility to receive future funding would have been jeopardized, as would funding for many Wyoming communities.
Future Benefits of the Fee Program
We found the fee program has slowly evolved from a completely voluntary approach at the time of the bucking horse camping permits, to a consistent program that provides visitors with more information and services. In the future, we believe the fee program can be used to achieve even further benefits in terms of both quality recreational experiences and resource protection.
This report provides an historical account of the evolution of the fee program in Wyoming’s park system, and shows that it has operated at a net gain. It also offers a context for how Wyoming compares to its surrounding states, and how fee structures can enhance or limit management objectives. Based on experiences of surrounding states and at the federal level, we suggest alternatives for using the fee program to more effectively manage the high-use parks in Wyoming.
[1] In the 2001 Session, the TRW/CR committee was assigned an interim topic regarding the use of state parks including management problems related to public use, access to state lands, and current management of state parks and habitat areas purchased with federal funds.
CHAPTER 2
Revenue and Expenses
Fee Program More than Meets Costs
The fee program has operated at a net gain, both in aggregate and when the 16 locations collecting fees are considered individually. The result of the fee program’s achievement is that, through the enterprise account, users are paying for capital construction at the parks and sites. The enterprise account received just under $1 million dollars in fee revenues in 2000.
SPHS has actively managed the fee program by isolating the expenses and assessing the bottom line for each location collecting fees. Building on successes to date, SPHS can continue to improve the program by tracking permit use patterns and compliance levels with fees, and by re-evaluating how the fee collection staff is currently deployed.
Fee Program Operates at a Net Gain
In aggregate, the fee program has operated at a net gain: revenues have exceeded expenditures for the past four fiscal years. As shown in Figure 4, the net gain of the fee program during that period was nearly $2 million. SPHS spent approximately $1 million for the fee program, or roughly 6 percent of the total authorization for the Parks and Sites Program during this period.
Figure 4: Fee Program Revenues & Expenses
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2000 FY97-98 FY99-00 Total Fee Program Revenue $1,308,005 $1,773,379 $3,081,384 Fee Program Expenses $568,667 $555,780 $1,124,447 Net gain $739,338 $1,217,599 $1,956,937
Source: SPACR. Note: These amounts do not include administrative or overhead costs.
SPHS tracks the direct costs of the fee program through internal budget categories. Direct expenses include personnel costs for seasonal and intermittent fee collectors and supervisors, utilities and maintenance for fee stations, and supplies for the fee program.
The largest expense for the fee program is personnel costs, which are tracked uniformly through the payroll system. SPHS reports the number of seasonal fee collector positions varies since parks and sites employ fewer fee collectors early in the season, and more at the height of the summer and on peak weekends. Superintendents reported a total of 43 fee collectors, 8 fee supervisors, and 3 other seasonal employees in 2000. The overall determinant of the personnel employed for fee collection is the money available in the 100 series of the fee program budget, totaling $248,025 in fiscal year 2000.
Superintendents exercise some individual judgment regarding how supplies, utilities, and maintenance are charged to the fee program, as it can be more difficult to segregate these expenses related to the fee program from other operating expenses. SPHS reports, however, thatthe expenses of the telephone and other utilities in a fee booth typically are metered separately and can therefore be charged to the fee program.
Statute allows SPACR to contract with private selling agents around the state to sell annual permits, with selling agents retaining ten percent of the fee revenue they collect. We considered this to be a fee program expense,amounting to $8,193 over the two most recent bienniums.
The costs presented in this report are not the “fully-loaded” costs, which would be the direct costs described above plus a proportional share of the overhead expenses of the particular location and the agency. Wyoming state government lacks a cost accounting system to track overhead by program. Nevertheless, we believe the overhead costs of the fee program are not large, and certainly are not large enough to change the overall net gain. The fee program is not associated with agency functions that would be avoidable if the program were cancelled.
Each Location Produced a Net Gain in 2000
The year 2000 was the first full year during which the fee program was completely implemented. For this reason, we reviewed program revenues and expenses for the 16 individual locations collecting fees for calendar year 2000. At each of the 16 parks and sites, the fee program operated at a net gain, although there is considerable variation among them in the size of the net gain. Figure 5 details this information.
Figure 5: Fee Program Revenues and Expenses
Calendar Year 2000[1] Net Revenue/
Location Revenues Expenses Gain/loss Expense Boysen $95,076 $51,197 $43,879 $1.86 Buffalo Bill $46,367 $27,601 $18,766 $1.68 Curt Gowdy $92,432 $45,529 $46,903 $2.03 EKW $25,868 $15,790 $10,078 $1.64 Ft Bridger $32,336 $13,993 $18,343 $2.31 Ft. Fetterman/Kearny $18,402 $5,013 $13,389 $3.67 Glendo $497,494 $54,546 $442,948 $9.12 Guernsey/Hawk Springs $196,346 $46,825 $149,521 $4.19 Keyhole $176,942 $50,412 $126,530 $3.51 Medicine Lodge $13,674 $3,277 $10,397 $4.17 Seminoe $46,854 $2,349 $44,505 $19.95 Sinks Canyon $15,036 $447 $14,589 $33.64 South Pass City $17,685 $14,659 $3,026 $1.21 Trail End $8,226 $2,619 $5,607 $3.14 Selling Agents $41,418 $5,014 $36,404 N/A Cheyenne HQ $10,915 $52,001 ($41,086) N/A Total $1,335,071 $391,272 $943,800 $3.41
Source: LSO analysis of SPACR data.
The ratio of revenue to expenses reflects how much revenue was raised for every dollar spent on the fee program. For the fee program in total, $3.41 was collected for every dollar spent to operate the fee program. We used two additional means of analyzing the results of the fee program at these locations: revenues and net gain. Glendo is the leader when considering revenues and net gain. However, when considering the ratio of revenue to expenses, Sinks Canyon and Seminoe are the leaders because these two sites incur no personnel costs for fee collectors.
Revenue from the fee program is larger at some locations, smaller at others, and very seasonal by nature. For example, in 2000, Glendo collected nearly $500,000 or 40 percent of total fee revenues. Average monthly receipts during the peak season of May through September ranged from about $98,000 at Glendo to $700 at Ft. Fetterman. During the off-peak, monthly receipts averaged from roughly $2,000 at Boysen to $40 at South Pass City. See Appendix D for further detail.
Direct Administrative Costs For the year 2000, we includeddirect administrative expenses in the costs of the fee program and attributed them to the expenses for the Cheyenne Headquarters in Figure 5. Three staff members in SPHS and two in the SPACR accounting office provide administrative support to the fee program, although none isdedicated to it full-time.
SPACR estimated the direct administrative costs associated with administrative support to be approximately $52,000 for one year. The net loss of roughly $41,000 for the Cheyenne headquarters reported in Figure 5 reflects the direct administrative costs minus the revenue from permits sold out of the Cheyenne office. However, because the Cheyenne staff provide administrative support to benefit the fee program overall, the $52,000 could alternatively be attributed to the parks and sites charging fees.
Cost of Seasonal Law Enforcement Since the inception of the current fee program, law enforcement personnel have been hired for the summer season and deployed among the parks. In 2000, SPHS hired five full-time rangers and approximately ten part-time rangers, plus additional law enforcement personnel hired for the peak summer weekends. Checking for visitor compliance with fees is a part of the rangers’ job responsibilities, but maintaining order among visitors is their primary focus.
The two programs, fee collection and law enforcement, have been closely connected and are often inter-related. Thus, we considered whether attributing the cost of seasonal law enforcement for the parks and sites would change the fee program’s net gain status. We found that it did not: the program still operated at a net gain for 2000. Subtracting seasonal law enforcement costs of nearly $193,000, the fee program’s net gain was then approximately $751,000. This calculation does not include any cost for permanent full-time law enforcement personnel, or superintendents or assistant superintendents involved in law enforcement.
Users Pay for Capital Construction
In 1999, the Legislature changed the distribution of fee revenues, directing for the first time that 80 percent be deposited to an enterprise account to fund capital construction projects at the parks and sites. In calendar year 2000, the fee program generated about $1.3 million in fees, with roughly $270,000 going to the General Fund and just over $1 million dollars going to the enterprise account. The cost of the fee program, about $390,000 in 2000, is included in the General Fund appropriation to SPACR.
The decision to charge park fees is a common policy choice, and is often referred to as “user pays.” Through the payment of taxes, the public supports the setting aside of land, protecting that land, and operating parks. The user pays philosophy holds that users of parks have an obligation to pay a greater share of the parks’ costs. The user pays philosophy is widely adhered to in park systems nationwide, with most state park systems as well as federal parks charging daily entrance and camping fees.
According to the director of SPACR, “The fee program provides a financial infusion that we can use for capital construction projects that we couldn’t do otherwise.” Wyoming’s fee program operationalizes the user pays philosophy in that user fees, channeled through the enterprise account, support the funding of capital construction projects. In addition, we discuss certain non-monetary benefits of the fee program in Chapter 4.
Policy Affects Amount of Revenue Generated for Capital Construction Legislative policy changes can affect the amount of money available in the enterprise account for capital construction. Statutory changes that take effect in January 2002 are predicted to decrease revenue from the fee program by an estimated $135,000 annually, or about 10 percent of the amount raised in 2000. These changes will lower the non-resident daily-use and camping fees, as well as create a non-resident annual camping permit.
We identified several ways in which, if it chooses, the Legislature could offset this loss and increase the revenue generating ability of the fee program. The Legislature could authorize more parks and sites to charge fees, increase fees overall or selectively, or reconsider annual permits. For example, in 1993, the agency and the PCR Commission were in favor of charging fees at Hot Springs State Park (HSSP), believing a fee program at HSSP could be successful. However, since then, the Legislature has not authorized fees at HSSP or at several other locations, although it has been discussed. The Legislature’s Travel, Recreation, Wildlife, and Cultural Resources Committee could revisit these policy matters if increasing the fee program revenue is desired.
SPHS Has Carefully Managed the Fee Program
The fee program has operated at a net gain for a number of reasons, but fundamentally because doing so was a legislative requirement for establishing the program. This legacy has had an impact on how SPHS manages the fee program today. SPACR designed its internal budget to isolate the expenses of the fee program, so the administrator of SPHS can ensure revenues exceed expenditures at the locations charging fees.
SPHS has worked to keep expenses low by tailoring the monetary controls needed for a cash-generating program to be economical. SPHS developed a fee program operations manual and instituted internal controls through the use of cash registers and review of requiredcash register reports. These systems help ensure the money collected from visitors is fully reported and transmitted.
Varying circumstances at the individual parks and sites, combined with a small staff, have resulted in a program that is run with minimal monetary controls. For example, SPHS does not conduct background checks on fee collectors, nor does it perform unannounced spot audits of the fee program. Furthermore, fee collectors receive only a small amount of training from SPHS. While these limitations introduce some risk, they give the program the flexibility necessary to keep expenses in check.
In addition, some superintendents have been innovative in keeping costs down. For example, during a short period of seasonal popularity, the superintendent of Glendo State Park stations a fee collector in a truck at an entrance normally having just a canister. This helps ensure compliance with fees is high, but is not as costly as constructing and staffing a fee booth.
Ability of Parks and Sites to Generate Revenues is Limited This report presents a snapshot of the fee program’s success, in terms of revenues minus expenditures, for the year 2000. However, certain limitations on the revenue generating capacity of the parks and sites could change the status of the program in future years. The fee structure inherently limits the revenue generating capability of historic sites in two ways: historic sites do not offer camping, and statute establishes a lower daily-use fee for sites than for parks. In addition, annual daily-use and camping permits could be limiting revenue since visitors pay once for unlimited annual use. SPHS has not studied or tracked patterns of use for permit holders. Therefore, SPHS cannot estimate how much revenue is foregone through the sale and use of permits, or determine if an increase in the price of permits might be justifiable.
The degree of visitor compliance with fees can also impact the bottom line of the fee program. SPACR does not believe 100 percent compliance is a reasonable goal because staffing for that goal would be costly. However, the agency does not know what level of compliance has been achieved because it has not developed a means of estimating compliance.
Superintendents responded to our survey that compliance is high at staffed pay stations, but more problematic under the honor system (canisters). At staffed pay stations, a majority of superintendents estimated compliance of between 90 and 100 percent, while none thought compliance to be below 70 percent. Where the honor system is used, a majority of superintendents believed compliance to be 70 percent or less.
We analyzed revenue per visitor to give a rough gauge for compliance at the parks,[2] recognizing that other factors such as volume of visitors, length of stay, and the type of fees charged can also affect revenues. We compared revenue per visitor for the parks charging both daily-use and camping fees, and found some indications of lower compliance at Boysen and Hawk Springs. Both have low revenues per visitor while having an average length of stay per visitor that is similar to other parks. Additionally, Hawk Springs indicated some compliance problems, and several officials mentioned problems with payment of fees at Boysen, where the number of access points makes compliance harder to achieve. See Appendix E for detail on this analysis.
Some superintendents reported that a lack of personnel or facilities to collect fees were limiting revenues. For this reason, we believe the fee program could benefit from a re-evaluation of the way fee collection staff are currently deployed among parks and sites. The administrator of SPHS reports he would like to review the staffing of the fee program.
From an aggregate perspective, the opportunity cost of placing fee collectors at one location versus another can impact revenue generation. For example, Keyhole may be able to bring in more revenue with one more fee collector (by keeping a fee booth open more hours) than Ft. Bridger does with a position. However, particularly for historic sites, it appears the staff who collect fees also have other duties. This may make it difficult to extract a fee collector position from an historic site without interfering with the manner in which work is currently organized. Thus, the agency also needs to evaluate whether additional fee collection staff are warranted.
Recommendation: The fee program has been successful, but SPHS can make improvements.
SPHS has been successful in operating the fee program at a net gain. It can go on to improve the program by tracking and analyzing new information related to annual permit use and visitor compliance with fees. Currently, the agency lacks data regarding how frequently permit holders utilize parks and sites; lack of this data hampered officials when they needed to estimate foregone revenue due to permits. SPHS officials could use the fee program to track permit use patterns, since permit holders are required to stop at staffed entrances at all but one location. SPHS should also develop a means to gauge compliance with fees and use this information to assess where more or fewer resources may be needed.
Additionally, SPHS should re-evaluate the current staffing of the fee program to determine if some shifting of fee collector positions could improve the overall revenue-generating ability of the fee program, or if more staff are warranted. When developing this information, SPHS may wish to initiate discussions with the Legislature regarding policy areas that merit reconsideration. Such discussions can lead to refinements in policy that will keep the fee program in a net gain position, while continuing to achieve legislative and agency goals.
[1] We distributed the $13,270 cost of printing permits and fee envelopes across all parks/sites collecting fees, based on the percentage of revenue collected at that location. The total revenue shown here does not include $9,207 in offsets or $2,020 in permits sold at Hot Springs State Park. Including these would bring total revenue to $1,346,298. [2] We did not conduct this analysis for historic sites because those visitation numbers sometimes include visitors not entering fee areas.
CHAPTER 3
Wyoming and Comparator States
Purpose of Wyoming’s Fee Structure Differs from Surrounding States
The SPHS fee structure was established by the Legislature to accomplish different purposes than those in surrounding states. The Legislature’s primary consideration in creating this fee structure has been to maintain parks to provide quality recreational experiences for residents. The focus has not been on using state parks to promote the state’s tourism industry, or on achieving a degree of self-sufficiency for park operations as in other states. Three important legislative policies, charging residents less than non-residents, offering annual permits, and dedicating most fee revenues for capital improvements in the system, have supported that priority.
Wyoming’s unique fee structure has inherent benefits and limitations. The SPHS two-tier fee structure is considerably simpler than in other states, and resident costs are minimized. However, other states are able to accomplish additional management objectives, such as distributing visitor use or generating extra revenue, by modifying and varying fees. Pressure is mounting on Wyoming’s park resources, and there may be ways for Wyoming to accommodate some of the other states’ use of fees to better manage park resources.
Wyoming’s Fee Structure Designed For Residents’ Benefit
The Wyoming Legislature established the SPHS fee structure to accomplish different purposes than those in surrounding states. Throughout the evolution of the fee program in Wyoming, the sensitivity of fee-related issues coupled with sometimes competing political points of view have contributed to the development of a fee structure that differs from those of comparator states.
Wyoming and the surrounding state park systems are diverse, including their number and types of areas, acreage,[1] visitation and revenues. We selected Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah as comparators, as they are Wyoming’s six contiguous states. Further, these states were included in a 1991 study that contributed to the establishment of the fee program.
In Wyoming, controlling use and access appear to have been the primary legislative intent behind the initial setting of fees, rather than collecting the maximum possible revenues. Another legislative priority has been to provide a quality recreational experience for state residents, as opposed to focusing on the parks as a tourist attraction. Several key legislative policies, addressed in the following sections, have supported these priorities.
Wyoming Residents Pay Less For Daily Use Wyoming and the surrounding states charge daily use fees for each day of visitation to a park or site. Consistent with legislative intent to focus on providing recreational opportunities for residents, Wyoming is the only state among the comparators that charges non-residents more than residents for daily use.[2] As illustrated in Figure 6, other states charge the same rates for both residents and non-residents.
Figure 6: Daily Use Fees for Residents & Non-Residents[3] 2000
Daily CO ID MT NE SD UT WY Use Resident $4 $3 $4 $2.50 $3-$5 $3-$6 $2 Non- Same Same Same Same Same Same $5/$4* Resident
Source: LSO analysis of Wyoming and surrounding park systems’ data. *Note: The second number is a recent change, to become effective January 2002.
Wyoming has the lowest daily use fee for residents, and is among the highest for non-residents. Comparing daily use fees for parks, other states’ rates range from $3 to $6 for all visitors. In Wyoming, residents pay $2; non-residents pay $5, which will be reduced to $4 in 2002.
Wyoming Permits Intended to Provide Advantage for Residents Annual permits allow unlimited use of state parks and sites for a flat fee. Thus, they provide a financial advantage to frequent users, such as local residents with easier access to a location. However, in order to comply with federal regulations, SPHS also has had to offer permits to non-residents, in effect extending the benefit to non-residents and minimizing the advantage to residents. Further, permits are inconsistent with the user pays philosophy, since we assume that visitors purchase permits in order to obtain a discounted cost per visit. Thus, visitors who use the parks most may pay less for their use of the resource.
Wyoming is alone among surrounding states in offering an annual resident camping permit. Beginning in 2001, because of L&WCF regulations, it is offering a camping permit to non-residents as well.
Figure 7: Annual Daily Use Permit for Residents & Non-Residents 2000
Daily Use CO ID MT NE SD UT WY Permit Resident $40 $35 $20 $14 $20 $65 $25 Non-Resident Same Same $24 Same Same Same $40
Source: LSO analysis of Wyoming and surrounding park systems’ data.
As illustrated in Figure 7, all comparator states offer an annual daily use permit, with Wyoming and Montana having non-resident differentials. For residents, costs range from $14 in Nebraska to $65 in Utah. Wyoming is in the middle at $25. For non-residents, Wyoming, at $40, is among the most expensive for daily use permits, and only Utah charges more for all visitors.
Wyoming Dedicates Fee Revenues to Capital Construction Wyoming’s fee revenues are dedicated to capital construction, whereas all of the surrounding states reported using fee revenues primarily for operating expenses. The comparator states report levels of self- sufficiency, or the percentage of their total operating costs covered by their fee revenues. Consistent with opinions voiced at statewide stakeholder meetings, the Wyoming Legislature has dedicated fee revenues to improving park facilities. This maintains and enhances the resources that belong to residents, rather than covering operating costs as would be necessary if the parks were required to attain a level of self-sufficiency.
Regardless of the purposes for which fee revenues are expended in the different states, all seven of them pool the revenue. This means each park and site does not receive funding based on the amount of fee revenues it collected. By pooling fees, park managers can address priorities on a system-wide basis and attend to the needs of those sites that collect less fee revenue.
Other Unique Features of Wyoming’s Fee Structure
Fees Are Set in Statute Wyoming’s Legislature sets policy for the state park system, including determination of fees. The surrounding state park systems receive overall policy direction from a parks board or commission, which also has fee-setting authority. Only in Nebraska does the Legislature set the daily use fee, but Nebraska’s parks board approves camping fees. Agency staff make initial fee change recommendations in Idaho and Utah, with final approval coming from the board and the legislature routinely accepting the fee structure changes.
Wyoming statutes make no fee exception for non-vehicular traffic; thus Wyoming is also unique in charging the same amount for both motorized and non-motorized admittance. For visitors who enter on foot or by bicycle, Idaho, Nebraska, and South Dakota do not charge a daily use fee, and the remaining surrounding states, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah, charge a reduced fee.
Wyoming Offers Only Primitive Camping Wyoming and Montana parks differ from the other comparator states in offering open camping in addition to designated campsites, while charging the same fee for both experiences. Open camping means that users can camp anywhere within the park boundaries, excluding areas posted as off-limits. Most of the eleven parks or sites in Wyoming offering camping have both types of camping.
In Wyoming and Montana, designated campsites are all primitive; at a minimum they have access to potable water and primitive (vault) restrooms but do not provide access to utilities. Wyoming’s designated sites include a parking space, fire ring, and picnic table. The other comparator states offer improved designated campsites that include access to electricity, running water, and modern toilets, either through hook-ups or central facilities. These states vary camping fees according to the amenities offered or the popularity of the sites or of the parks in which they are located.
In Wyoming, campground owners have adamantly maintained that SPHS should not offer camping opportunities comparable to those available in the private sector. Private concessionaires operating in some water-based parks offer improved campsites, and most SPHS parks and sites that offer camping are within 30 miles of private campgrounds with improved campsites. In the surrounding states, park fees are at least somewhat determined by comparing with private sector rates.
Cost For Resident Camping is Low Considering the total cost for a day of camping, Figure 8 shows that Wyoming is again at the low end for residents at $6. Only Nebraska charges less, $5.50, for its primitive campsites. Non-resident campers in Wyoming pay significantly more, $14, for primitive campsites than do out-of-state visitors to most of the surrounding state park systems. Charges for primitive campsites for all visitors range from $5.50 in Nebraska to $12 in Montana.
Figure 8: Daily Camping Costs for Residents & Non-Residents 2000
Camping CO ID MT NE SD UT WY Cost[4]
Resident $10- $7- $12 $5.50- $9- $8- $6 20 12 18.50 20 19 Non-Resident Same Same Same Same Same Same $14
Source: LSO analysis of Wyoming and surrounding park systems’ data.
Wyoming’s Fee Revenues Low Considering Visitation Considering total fee revenues in conjunction with visitation, as shown in Figure 9, two states can have similar visitation but significantly different revenues.[5] For example, Wyoming and Idaho had about the same visitation in 2000, but Idaho collected almost $3 million more in fee revenues. Even though Wyoming had over a million more visitors, it collected $300,000 less in revenues than Montana.
Figure 9: Visitation & Revenues in Wyoming & Surrounding States 2000
CO ID MT NE SD UT WY Visitation 10.3 2.7 1.5 9.9 7 6.7 2.6
(millions) Fee Revenues $16.1 $4.2 $1.6 $13.7 $4.6 $7.8 $1.3 (millions)
Source: LSO analysis of Wyoming and surrounding park systems’ reported 2000 data.
Variations in fee revenues collected may be due to factors outside of the control of the state park system, such as the population of the state and the types of parks and sites each system provides. However, we believe the different legislative priorities and unique fee structure in Wyoming discussed above, may account for some of the disparities.
Benefits and Limitations Of Wyoming’s Unique Fee Structure
Wyoming’s fee structure supports the legislative priority of providing quality recreational experiences for residents, by minimizing costs to residents and by investing most of the fee revenues into improving the parks and sites. Further, the state’s two-tier fee structure for parks and historic sites is significantly simpler than the surrounding states’ fee structures, since all locations within a tier are valued the same.
However, Wyoming’s fee structure limits its ability to accomplish park management objectives compared to surrounding states, as will be discussed in Chapter 4. For example, the flat camping fee established in statute does not allow the flexibility that other states have in setting their fees, which they use for management purposes. Other states vary fees to reflect different camping experiences, enabling them to distribute use between and within parks and to generate extra revenue by charging higher fees for more developed campsites. SPHS cannot vary fees since the rates are set in statute.
Recommendation: The Legislature
should consider other states’ usage of fee structures for enhanced park management.
As visitation at Wyoming’s state parks increases, more pressure will be placed on SPHS resources and greater flexibility will be needed to effectively manage diverse circumstances. Although some management options are unavailable by virtue of legislative intent and the choices made in structuring Wyoming’s park fees, there may still be opportunities to incorporate techniques used in other states. For example, variable fees could be considered based on the amount of visitation a specific location gets, or quality of campsite, as is done in surrounding states. As Wyoming’s park system continues to evolve, the Legislature may want to consider modifications to the fee structure to enable SPHS to fulfill expanded management requirements and to ensure the quality of residents’ recreational opportunities.
[1] See Appendix F for comparisons of acreage and the number and types of parks. [2] Montana has three parks that charge the standard daily use and/or camping fees for non-residents, but are free for Montana residents. Additionally, some states offer various discounted fees for specific groups of residents, such as low-income, disabled, and senior residents. [3] Not including permits or exceptions. [4] Daily use fees are included for those states (CO, NE, SD, and WY) that do not include daily use fees in their camping fees. [5] Fee compliance did not appear to be a significant factor in accounting for the differences in fee revenues.
CHAPTER 4
Fee Structure Management Benefits
SPHS Fee Program, Directly, Provides Limited Park Management Benefits
According to park and site superintendents, the fee program has most benefited the parks and sites by providing, where there are staffed fee stations, an information liaison with visitors. Superintendents also say the fee program has improved visitor recreational experiences and helped protect SPHS resources. However, these two benefits largely result from the enhanced law enforcement program that SPHS instituted concurrently with the enhanced fee program.
SPHS has not been able to use the fee program as a tool to manage visitor camping in the parks and sites. In Wyoming, paying camping fees entitles park users to camp anywhere in the parks, unless posted otherwise. Unlike most comparator state systems, SPHS does not limit park camping to designated sites or areas as a means of protecting natural resources. SPHS reports that resource degradation is becoming a problem in some parks that have consistent high use. There may be opportunities for the SPHS fee program to play a greater role in managing visitor use.
Fee Program Benefits Parks and Sites, Both Directly and Indirectly
As a management tool, SPHS officials see the greatest direct benefit of the fee program to be the improved communication with park and site visitors afforded by the staffed fee stations. Fee collectors can direct visitors to areas in the parks that are less crowded, and provide current information about park attractions and facilities. In addition, they provide visitors with general information about sites, parks, and surrounding areas. In turn, visitors can report emergency situations to fee collectors, as well as give them their comments about park conditions. At historic sites, fee personnel often serve as part of the site operations staffing, performing other duties in addition to collecting fees. Especially in the large water- based parks, the fee collectors may be visitors’ only contact with SPHS personnel unless they encounter park rangers.
Park and site superintendents responded to our survey that the fee program has also contributed positively to visitor recreational experiences and to protecting park and site resources. They cite the improved visitor behavior and public safety benefits as the most significant. SPHS officials believe that the parks have a more family-oriented atmosphere, and that underage partying has decreased. This sentiment was especially high among superintendents of the large water-based parks. However, the superintendents attribute these benefits largely to the enhanced law enforcement program that SPHS instituted concurrently with the phased fee collection program.
Superintendents also viewed the fee program as making a positive contribution toward protecting resources. However, similarly, most attributed that contribution to the law enforcement accompanying the fee program. Having a greater law enforcement presence has reportedly reduced vandalism and lessened vehicle use in areas where prohibited, thus helping park managers protect the resources. The fee program has made a direct contribution in this area, to the extent that the existence of fees and fee collectors has reportedly deterred some resource abuse that formerly occurred and “made people more accountable.” Where parks and sites have staffed fee stations, fee collectors can explain park rules and restrictions, which superintendents say also helps protect park resources.
Comparator States Manage Camping Use Directly Through Fee Programs
The state park systems we studied as comparators reported their fee programs generated the same indirect benefits: improved visitor behavior and reduced vandalism. However, in addition, they report greater ability to manage visitor use, specifically camping use, and greater ability to preserve park resources than does SPHS. They are able to do this for three reasons: they limit camping to designated campsites, they connect prices with specific camping opportunities, and they have at least limited reservation systems. These practices, directly related to fee structures, enable the park managers to maintain capacity limits in their parks and sites.
Capacity limits are estimates of the number of users a recreation resource or facility can accommodate while still providing a high quality recreational experience and preserving the natural values of the site. Capacity limits enable parks to manage visitor use by better distributing and limiting that use. Having capacity limits also helps park managers determine the level of restroom and garbage disposal services they need to maintain. Thus, managing parks according to capacity levels protects resources. Limiting capacity by creating designated campsites also can improve visitors’ experiences by preventing conflicts that can result from overcrowding.
Limiting camping to designated sites means that payment of camping fees entitles users to camp only in specific locations, rather than anywhere within park boundaries. Designated campsites also lay the foundation for establishing reservation systems. These systems better distribute use among parks, since campers are willing to travel greater distances to parks when they are assured of campsites upon arrival. A broader distribution of camping use helps protect park resources.
SPHS Does Not Use Fee Program To Manage Camping Use
SPHS is not able to use its fee program the way other states do to manage visitor camping use, by connecting camping fees to designated campsites. Although SPHS has not formally determined what constitutes a designated campsite, park superintendents report that there are some sites they consider to be designated. In most parks, however, SPHS allows users to camp anywhere within park boundaries unless otherwise posted.
The flat fee, adjusted for residents and non-residents, applies to all available camping opportunities. Park officials believe that users do not always get camping experiences equal in value to the fee. Some parks have more desirable camping spots than others, and areas within parks differ, such as being near or far from waterfronts and shelter.
Fee Program Could Provide Additional Management Information
The current fee program does not provide park managers with immediate information about park usage. Most park and site superintendents say they can estimate usage on a given day, by relying on a combination of fee receipts, traffic counters, and opinions of park personnel for those estimates. A majority of the superintendents believe that the fee program could be used to provide them with better information about recent or in- progress park or site use.
Currently, fee receipts do not provide information regarding the number of persons per vehicle or the number of users accessing state parks with annual permits. Thus, the process is not providing a foundation for management information that would inform park managers’ decisions about use, development, and preservation of the parks and sites. Further, when the new non-resident camping permit is made available in 2002, the one accurate assessment now provided by the fee program, the level of non-resident camping, will be lost.
Overcrowding At Some Parks Creates Need For Ability to Manage Camping Use
According to SPHS, there is a need to be able to manage visitor use, specifically camping use, at its major water-based parks. SPHS staff report that over-crowding is damaging park natural resources, especially on summer weekends. SPHS also reports that overcrowding at high-use parks is having an adverse effect on visitors’ experiences and overloading SPHS law enforcement and general sanitation capabilities. However, the overcrowding is not system-wide: some parks and the historic sites report visitor use below what they can accommodate.
SPHS rules give the division authority to close to public use all or parts of parks for the protection of an area, or the safety and welfare of persons or property. In our survey, only two park superintendents reported that they have closed their parks due to overcrowding, and they made those decisions to protect park resources when all campsites were occupied. One of them noted, “When the campsites are full, the public drive and camp all over, damaging the resources.” A superintendent of a high-use water-based park indicated that closure is imminent, noting that overcrowding “creates a very real danger to our campgrounds. Large quantities of gasoline are present in 5-gallon containers, and open fires and illegal fireworks are often present.”
SPHS Lacks Ability to Set Capacity Levels to Better Manage Visitor Use in Busy Parks
Although 94 percent of the superintendents believe there is a need to do so, SPHS has not established capacity levels for its parks and sites. Comparator state parks systems set capacity levels for their parks based upon designated sites for camping, and upon parking lot capacity for daily use. Since SPHS has open camping as well as designated site camping, officials say setting capacity levels would be difficult.
Further, park officials say they lack the financial resources to develop capacity levels either on a resource-based approach, or through a planning process in which public consensus would set the desired level. From various public meetings and visitor comments it has received, park officials understand that the public is divided between wanting designated and open camping. Officials strive to meet user preferences, and want to continue to allow visitors to camp in groups, which they see designated sites as prohibiting.
SPHS Has Not Developed a Formal Proposal for Managing Camping Use Through Fees
Although SPHS has recognized its limited ability to control use, which park officials believe is becoming a critical need in certain consistent high- use parks, it has not developed a specific plan to expand this control through the fee program. SPHS has requested the blanket authority to modify fees to address heavy use and varying site attractiveness, such as proximity to facilities, shelter, or waterfronts. SPHS has also requested legislation permitting fee modifications that would allow development of a reservation system. However, SPHS has not formally proposed how it will use these authorities.
Since the Legislature is setting policy through the fee structure, granting the agency full fee flexibility would also be giving the agency authority to set policy. We learned that over the years, legislators have discussed varying fees depending upon different circumstances among and within the parks and sites. However, SPHS reportedly has not provided legislators with a concrete proposal for discussion and action. Doing so is necessary to assure legislators that agency plans are consistent with legislative policy.
Requesting the transfer of fee-setting authority without a formal proposal contrasts with the steps SPHS took when proposing the phased fee program. That proposal was supported by a study indicating there was potential for generating fees in the parks and sites that would be sufficient to cover collection costs. Further, a pilot program was conducted at one park, and a follow-up report was prepared, to determine the possible outcomes of the fee program. Finally, a phased approach was introduced to implement the fee program throughout SPHS. SPHS did not support its recent request for fee-setting authority with such proposals and information.
Recommendation: SPHS should seek legislative approval for a pilot proposal that will allow it to better manage visitor camping at high-use parks.
Rather than ask the Legislature for overall authority to vary fees throughout its system of parks and sites, SPHS should identify specific objectives and develop a proposal to address them. For example, from our research, we learned that problems stemming from overcrowding are not currently system-wide. These problems are primarily a concern for large, water-based parks, especially Glendo State Park, which is heavily used by both Wyoming and Colorado residents. Given the significant increase in the Colorado Front Range population, and the impending closure of a popular Colorado water-based park, the overcrowding at Glendo could become an even greater threat to visitor safety and resource preservation.
To address its concerns related to consistent high-use parks, SPHS might model a proposal after its own Guernsey pilot project, from which it went on to develop the fee collection program. SPHS could develop a pilot project to meet Glendo’s needs and report to the Legislature on the project’s results. Based on this information, the Legislature could determine whether the pilot program modifications should be maintained, whether the outcomes are consistent with its policy intent, and whether they can be applied to other parks facing similar challenges.
SPHS might also look to the Federal Recreational Demonstration Program (FRD program) as a model. In this program, Congress authorized four federal land management agencies to test a variety of new fees at a limited number of their sites. Congress allows agencies to retain all of the fee revenue generated by new fees, with 80 percent to be used at the sites where they were collected. The purpose of this program is, in part, to use fees to increase the quality of visitors’ experiences and enhance resource protection. Park managers have used fee revenue for facility enhancement and backlogged maintenance as well as for operations related to public use, such as law enforcement. Congress has required that the agencies report on demonstration project results.
In developing a demonstration proposal to address the high-use challenges exemplified by Glendo, SPHS might propose any of several possibilities: modifying fees, eliminating camping permit use, or varying other fees or operations to address problems most severe at that park. Following the example of the FRD program, SPHS might propose that a portion of any increased revenue generated at Glendo through the pilot program stay at the park to develop means to better control capacity and meet visitor needs. This could include capital construction projects to develop more designated campsites or areas, or adding operational resources in the areas of law enforcement, maintenance, or fee collection.
CHAPTER 5
Enterprise Account
Fee Revenues Will Support SPHS Capital Construction Projects
A primary outcome of the SPHS fee program is that it generates revenue dedicated to an enterprise account that will fund capital construction in the parks and sites. SPHS superintendents believe this funding will significantly benefit the recreational quality of the parks and sites. With the enterprise account, Wyoming state parks and sites have a consistent source of funding for major maintenance projects that affect public health and safety, as well as for facility enhancements that affect recreational opportunities. The Legislature and SPHS have strategically moved the fee program toward providing this capital improvement fund, while maintaining operations funding from the General Fund. Thus, SPHS is in a better position than most park systems, which face deferred maintenance backlogs with no dedicated funds to address them.
SPHS Retains the Majority of Fee Revenues for Capital Construction Projects
Receiving legislative authority to keep most fee revenue is a significant advance for the SPHS fee program. According to professional literature, a critical principle in fee program design is whether a collecting agency is allowed to retain fee revenues. Not retaining fees may provide less incentive to collect fees or for visitors to pay them.
Effective January 1, 2000, W.S. 36-4-121 (h) specifies that eighty percent of SPHS fee revenue goes into an enterprise account for the division to expend for capital construction projects; the remaining twenty percent goes into the General Fund. Also by statute, the Legislature must approve expenditures from the enterprise account.
The 2000 Legislature authorized the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources to expend $2,122,500 from the enterprise account during the 2001-2002 biennium for capital construction in the state parks and historic sites. This authorization included approval for approximately $480,000 of specific projects in 2000. In the 2001 session, the agency submitted and received authorization for a prioritized list of projects that it plans to undertake during the 2001 construction season with the remaining funding.
Approved FY 2001-2002 SPHS Projects Approved capital construction projects for the rest of the biennium encompass projects at nearly all parks and sites, including those that do not charge fees. SPHS plans to undertake a range of projects, including emergency repairs at all parks, as well as restroom, sidewalk, and fuel storage tank replacements. There are also projects planned to develop more designated campsites, which will support the park management objectives discussed in the previous chapter. SPHS senior management officials prioritized the approved list of projects from a list of nearly $5 million proposed by the parks and sites. Officials expect the total list of proposed projects to change over time as some conditions become more critical or new situations arise.
The first list of capital construction projects funded by the enterprise account is consistent with the capital improvements that users have indicated they want through comments and statewide public meetings. SPHS officials expect completion of these projects to help increase visitor support for the fee system.
SPHS Prioritization Process Using a project rating system, agency officials determined which projects to send forward for legislative approval. The system gives highest priority to projects that, if not done, stand to affect the health and safety of visitors or SPHS employees or will violate government laws or regulations. Other factors that give projects priority include whether structural damage is imminent if deferred maintenance is delayed, and whether projects will reduce operating costs.
In determining priorities for the enterprise account, SPHS officials said they are being vigilant not to include projects that park and site managers should cover in their normal maintenance budgets. However, if parks and sites proposed deferred maintenance projects for which SPHS lacked funding in the past, managers considered them. A state facilities manager indicated that it is acceptable within the state capital funding process to propose health and safety projects as capital outlays. SPHS officials point out that they intend to manage the enterprise account in a way that would not invite the Legislature to supplant General Fund appropriations for normal operations and maintenance.
SPHS Pools Enterprise Account Funds In developing its proposal for enterprise fund expenditures, SPHS uses a pooled approach. This allows it to address capital construction and deferred maintenance priorities on a system-wide basis, including the needs of parks and sites that do not generate much fee revenue or charge fees. SPHS superintendents of sites not offering camping, especially historic sites, indicated in our survey that the potential distribution of enterprise account funds was the fee program’s greatest contribution toward visitors’ recreational experiences. On the other hand, with the pooled approach, users of parks that contribute greater amounts of fee revenue see less of it coming back to support the parks they frequent.
Another approach to distributing fee revenue is to retain all or most of it at the collection sites. The FRD program, as discussed in the previous chapter, uses this approach. It demonstrates to visitors that their fees go toward improvements in the parks they use, and increases the incentive for individual national park managers to collect fees. However, there is also a potential over time for high revenue-generating parks to use fee revenues for lower priority projects, while other agency sites have high priority needs that remain unmet. SPHS officials note this concern as a reason for implementing the pooled approach.
SPHS Has a Consistent Capital Outlay Source
Park systems nationally, including those of surrounding states, have perennial problems addressing infrastructure needs and maintenance backlogs. States that get significant portions of their operations funding from fee revenues rarely also have enough from that source to keep up with maintenance needs and new construction. Thus, they must obtain additional appropriations along with fee revenues to meet their needs. If SPHS keeps its General Fund appropriations for operations and normal maintenance, the state’s parks and sites will have both operational funding and a consistent revenue source for capital construction through the enterprise account.
SPHS officials report that having a stable revenue source for construction enables them to do long-range planning. This was not possible before the Legislature established the enterprise account because SPHS funding for capital construction and deferred maintenance was inconsistent. Then, SPACR projects had to compete with those from other state agencies in the state’s capital construction funding process to receive both the Governor’s recommendation and the Legislature’s approval.
In many years, the state’s funding for capital construction was limited, and SPHS did not fare well. According to agency records, in the last decade before the enterprise account was established, the Legislature appropriated about $4 million toward SPHS capital construction. Most of that came in FY 1991-1992, when the Legislature appropriated $3.3 million. In the subsequent eight years, SPHS received a total of $628,500 for capital construction, with biennial amounts ranging from zero to $425,000. Now, the agency projects having at least $1 million per year with which to plan capital projects.
The Legislature and SPHS Strategically Developed the Fee Program to Include the Enterprise Account
Although the initial purpose of the fee program was to control use and access at state parks, longtime legislative and agency advocates also held the goal eventually to use fee revenues to improve park facilities. In 1994, SPHS held statewide meetings in which the public told them that fees should go back into improvements at parks and sites. Legislative leaders and agency officials recognized that implementing the fee program in allparks was a gradual process, and they concentrated on this as a first priority. Over the years, they modified proposals to retain revenues for the parks until they succeeded in developing a proposal that won the support of the full Legislature. The 1999 legislation establishing the enterprise account, which became effective in 2000, signaled the culmination of a patient and strategic process.
Recommendation: SPHS and the
Legislature must keep facility improvements in proportion with operations capacity.
At this point, SPHS is using the enterprise account to address projects that are largely health and safety related. While this is necessary to ensure public and employee welfare, these improvements are not always observable to visitors. In the future, if health and safety issues become a smaller portion of capital proposals, SPHS may face increasing public pressure to improve facilities and expand services. Such moves could increase the agency’s operating costs.
Capital improvements, in contrast to replacements or repairs of existing facilities, typically need maintenance and staff. Many of the SPHS park superintendents surveyed expressed concern that operations and maintenance funding may not keep pace with the division’s capacity for capital construction. At this point, the agency may need to engage the Legislature in discussion about how fee revenues can be used in other targeted ways to allow SPHS to meet visitors’ expectations while protecting park and site resources.
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
The National Association of State Park Directors sees state parks playing a significant role in providing recreational opportunities for the nations’ citizens, particularly as these parks are used more extensively by a growing population. Some of Wyoming’s parks stand to be greatly impacted by increased use. In light of this trend, SPHS will need more ability to manage state resources. As demonstrated by other states’ systems, a fee program can give agency officials and policy makers improved management capabilities.
At the same time, it is a tradition in Wyoming to retain state park fee- setting authority in the legislative branch. Developing a fee system that is mindful of legislative intent, yet flexible enough to offer SPHS opportunities to improve park management, will require balancing those needs. The federal government provides a model that allows such managerial flexibility. Congress has given the National Park Service (NPS) latitude to set fees subject to upper limits, and to vary fees among NPS locations.
The basic framework for how NPS will determine fees is established in federal law, which authorizes NPS to set reasonable fees up to specific ceilings. Congress also specified the criteria that guide NPS in setting fee levels. For example, NPS must set fee levels that reflect public policy interests and government costs, while remaining comparable with the private sector. This approach grants NPS flexibility to vary fees according to circumstances specific to a location.
Along with the recommendations we make in the report, this approach may be appropriate for Wyoming’s circumstances. However, the fee program has experienced constant debate and modification for the past decade; recent legislative amendments have yet to take effect. It maybe unwise to introduce more change immediately, but SPHS can begin to lay the groundwork for adjustments that could bring improved management benefits. Since fee changes affect the public, any future proposals should be extensively planned and evaluated, as was done with the phase-in of the fee program. A progressive but deliberate approach can greatly benefit the Wyoming parks and historic sites of the future.
APPENDIX A
Statutes
36-4-121. Permits to use state parks, recreation areas and historic sites.
(a) The department of state parks and cultural resources shall offer for sale permits that allow use of the state parks, recreation areas, archeological sites and historic sites. Daily use permits shall be required at Glendo, Guernsey, Curt Gowdy, Edness Kimball Wilkins, Buffalo Bill, Boysen, Seminoe and Keyhole state parks and Fort Bridger, South Pass City, Trail End, Fort Fetterman and Fort Phil Kearney state historic sites, and Hawk Springs state recreation area. The department may establish voluntary pay stations at Bear River and Hot Springs state parks to allow users of those parks to make voluntary contributions for the use of the state parks. Persons who enter or use Bear River or Hot Springs state park without paying daily use fees shall not be subject to the penalties provided for in subsection (j) of this section. Overnight camping permits shall be required at Boysen, Buffalo Bill, Curt Gowdy, Glendo, Guernsey, Keyhole, Seminoe and Sinks Canyon state parks, Connor Battlefield state historic site, Medicine Lodge state archeological site and Hawk Springs state recreation area by the department during the entire calendar year. The cost of the permits authorized under this section shall be:
(i) Twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per calendar year for a resident annual bucking horse daily use permit and forty dollars ($40.00) for a nonresident annual bucking horse daily use permit to designated state parks, historic sites, archeological sites and recreation areas, valid for the holder and occupants of the holder's vehicle, provided resident permits purchased pursuant to this paragraph between January 1 through February 15 of each year shall cost twenty dollars ($20.00) and nonresident permits purchased during the same period shall cost thirty-five dollars ($35.00);
(ii) Thirty dollars ($30.00) per calendar year for an annual resident overnight camping permit to designated state parks, historic sites, archeological sites and recreation areas to be issued to Wyoming residents only, valid for the holder and occupants of the holder's vehicle;
(iii) Except as provided under paragraph (a)(v) of this section, two dollars ($2.00) for residents and five dollars ($5.00) for nonresidents for the daily use fee for designated state parks, archeological sites and recreation areas, valid for the date of purchase for the holder and occupants of the holder's vehicle and for the holder entering the park or area by bicycle, horseback or on foot;
(iv) Except as provided under paragraph (a)(v) of this section, one dollar ($1.00) per person for residents and two dollars ($2.00) per person for nonresidents for the daily use fee for designated state historic sites, valid for the date of purchase for the holder only. The fee is not required for persons under the age of eighteen (18) years; (v) Two dollars ($2.00) per person for the daily use fee for buses used in guided tours at designated state parks, historic sites and recreation areas, valid for the date of purchase only. The bucking horse annual permit authorized under paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) of this section is not valid for and shall not be issued to buses used for purposes specified under this paragraph. The fee imposed under this paragraph shall not apply to persons under the age of eighteen (18) years;
(vi) Four dollars ($4.00) per night for residents and nine dollars ($9.00) for nonresidents for overnight camping at any designated state park, historic site, archeological site and recreation area valid for the date of purchase and the following day until 3:00 p.m. for the holder and occupants of the holder's vehicle;
(vii) Five dollars ($5.00) for each additional vehicle annual bucking horse entrance permit issued under subsection (b) of this section;
(viii) Five dollars ($5.00) for each additional vehicle annual resident overnight camping permit issued under subsection (b) of this section;
(ix) Five dollars ($5.00) for each duplicate annual bucking horse entrance permit issued under subsection (c) of this section;
(x) Five dollars ($5.00) for each duplicate annual resident overnight camping permit issued under subsection (c) of this section;
(xi) Any group may be charged a fee of not more than seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for a twenty-four (24) hour period for the use of the lodges located at Curt Gowdy or Buffalo Bill State Parks;
(xii) Any group may be charged a fee of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for a twelve (12) hour period for a group picnic shelter and adjacent grounds located at any department location;
(xiii) Upon written request of a group sponsoring a special event, the director of the department may, with the approval of the parks and cultural resources commission, waive any fees required under this subsection;
(xiv) Waived for the following:
(A) Persons needing to pass through a state park or historic site to access private property shall be exempt from the entrance permit requirements of this section;
(B) Persons needing access to a state park or historic site to conduct official business or only to access a private commercial business without further use of the state park or historic site shall be exempt from the entrance permit requirements of this section;
(C) School groups on school sanctioned events including events sanctioned by educational programs defined under W.S. 21-4-101(a)(iii), (iv) and (v), and residents and staff of publicly owned homes or institutions while on official agency functions shall be exempt from the entrance permit requirements of this section;
(D) Not for profit groups or organizations needing access to a state park or historic site to provide volunteer assistance or services that have been previously agreed upon by the department of state parks and cultural resources shall be exempt from the permit requirements of this section.
(b) Any holder of an annual bucking horse entrance permit or an annual resident overnight camping permit may obtain additional vehicle annual bucking horse entrance permits or additional vehicle annual resident overnight camping permits from the department or any selling agent of the department upon payment of the fee prescribed under paragraph (a)(vii) or (viii) of this section, as applicable, and upon submission of proof satisfactory to the department that an original annual permit was purchased and that the additional vehicle is registered in the same name as the vehicle for which the original annual permit is obtained, or that the additional vehicle is operated by the person who purchased the original annual permit or a member of his family under duly granted authority from his employer. The director shall determine the validity of the authority of an applicant to operate an employer-owned vehicle prior to issuance of an additional vehicle permit for that vehicle under this section. Any vehicle in tow by another vehicle owned by the same person shall be considered a single vehicle for purposes of this section and only a single annual bucking horse daily use permit shall be required for entrance at state parks and a single annual resident overnight camping permit shall be required for overnight camping at state parks.
(c) If an annual bucking horse daily use permit or an annual resident overnight camping permit is lost, mutilated or destroyed, the holder of the permit may obtain a duplicate annual permit from the department or any selling agent of the department upon filing an affidavit showing the loss, mutilation or destruction of the original permit and upon payment of the fee imposed under paragraph (a)(ix) or (x) of this section, as applicable.
(d) Repealed by Laws 1992, ch. 50, § 3.
(e) The department through the division of state parks and historic sites shall in accordance with W.S. 36- 4-123, appoint selling agents to sell bucking horse permits authorized under this section. Each appointed selling agent shall retain ten percent (10%) of the cost of each permit sold under this section as his sales commission. Designated department employees may sell annual bucking horse daily use permits and other permits required by this section but no employee of the department shall receive any commission on permits sold.
(f) Repealed by Laws 1992, ch. 50, § 3.
(g) Repealed by Laws 1992, ch. 50, § 3.
(h) The funds received by the department from the sale of the permits shall be deposited as follows:
(i) Eighty percent (80%) shall be deposited in a capital construction account within the enterprise fund and may be expended by the division for capital construction projects subject to approval by the legislature;
(ii) Twenty percent (20%) shall be deposited in the general fund.
(j) Any person using state parks, recreation areas and historic sites and failing to obtain a bucking horse permit or the other permits required by this section and any person otherwise violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or both.
(k) The department of state parks and cultural resources is authorized to contract with the town of Ranchester to implement a fee collection program at Connor Battlefield state historic site and to provide for park maintenance and operation. Notwithstanding subsection (h) of this section, fees collected pursuant to paragraphs (a)(ii) and (v) of this section for overnight camping at Connor Battlefield state historic site shall be deposited into a separate account within the earmarked revenue fund and may be expended by the department pursuant to contracts entered into under this subsection.
(m) Notwithstanding subsection (h) of this section, fees collected at Keyhole state park by the department of state parks and cultural resources shall first be applied to expenses incurred by the department of state parks and cultural resources to implement and conduct the collection of such fees, and then shall be used to reimburse water development account I for the funds deposited in the Keyhole reservoir account established by W.S. 41-2-1001(a)(v) and funds expended to purchase water necessary to initially fill the recreation pool in Keyhole reservoir. Upon the repayment of the water development account, the fees shall be deposited in accordance with subsection (h) of this section. The game and fish department shall, from nonlicensure fees, reimburse water development account I in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per year until the water development account I is repaid.
APPENDIX B
State Parks and Historic Sites
SPHS Locations, Type of Fees Charged, and Year Fees Implemented
Year Daily-use Fees Year Camping Fees Location Type of Fees Implemented Implemented Boysen Camping & Daily-use 2000 1992 Buffalo Bill Camping & Daily-use 1993 1992 Curt Gowdy Camping & Daily-use 1992 1992 Edness Kimball Wilkins Daily-use only 1993 N/A Ft. Bridger Daily-use only 1992 N/A Ft. Fetterman Daily-use only 2000 N/A Ft. Kearny Daily-use only 1992 N/A Glendo Camping & Daily-use 1992 1992 Guernsey Camping & Daily-use 1992 1992 Hawk Springs Camping & Daily-use 2000 1992 Keyhole Camping & Daily-use 1992 1992 Medicine Lodge Camping only N/A 2000 Seminoe Camping & Daily-use 2000 1992 Sinks Canyon Camping only N/A 1992 South Pass City Daily-use only 1993 N/A Trail End Daily-use only 2000 N/A Ames Monument No fees N/A N/A Bear River State Park No fees N/A N/A Connor Battlefield Fees collected by Ranchester N/A N/A Fetterman Battlefield No fees N/A N/A Fort Reno No fees N/A N/A Ft. Steele No fees N/A N/A Granger Stage Station No fees N/A N/A Hot Springs State Park No fees N/A N/A Independence Rock No fees N/A N/A Laclede Stage Station No fees N/A N/A Legend Rock No fees N/A N/A Names Hill No fees N/A N/A Oregon Trial Ruts No fees N/A N/A Piedmont Charcoal Kilns No fees N/A N/A Platte River Crossing No fees N/A N/A Point of Rocks Stage N/A N/A Station No fees Register Cliff No fees N/A N/A Wagon Box Battlefield No fees N/A N/A Territorial Park Private Contract N/A N/A
Source: SPHS. APPENDIX C
Visitation Statistics
Visitors and Visitor Days for 2000
Location Visitors Visitor Days Bear River* 313,801 52,091 Boysen 144,527 588,386 Buffalo Bill 53,576 38,891 Connor Batttle Field 9,585 4,174 Curt Gowdy 85,562 77,493 Edness Kimball Wilkins 83,048 22,174 Ft. Bridger 76,046 13,156 Ft. Fetterman 6,478 959 Ft. Kearney 29,063 4,272 Ft. Steele 8,582 1,167 Glendo 209,589 744,666 Guernsey 86,691 349,387 Hawk Springs 18,719 47,411 Historic Gov. Mansion 7,642 N/A Hot Springs 986,706 236,810 Keyhole 201,615 290,495 Medicine Lodge 20,639 68,128 Oregon Trail Ruts 44,027 4,359 Pioneer Museum 10,589 N/A Register Cliff 33,427 2,841 Seminoe 21,926 107,601 Sinks Canyon 162,194 88,020 South Pass City 15,866 N/A Trail End 16,409 N/A Total 2,646,307 2,742,481
Source: SPHS. *Includes visitation at the Travel Center and the park.
SPHS gives the following definitions: Visitors is the total number of persons entering a park or site to carry on one or more recreation activities. A visitor day is 12 visitor hours that may be accumulated continuously or simultaneously by one or more visitor.
APPENDIX D
Off-Season and Peak-Season Revenues
Total and Average Monthly Fee Revenues by Off and Peak Season Calendar Year 2000
Location Total Off-Season Peak-Season Boysen $95,076 $1,876 $16,389 Buffalo Bill $46,367 $286 $8,873 Curt Gowdy $92,432 $642 $17,588 EKW $25,868 $464 $4,524 Ft. Bridger $32,336 $355 $5,970 Ft. Fetterman $3,414 $0 $683 Ft. Kearney $14,988 $115 $2,836 Glendo $497,494 $1,308 $97,668 Guernsey $184,166 $400 $36,273 Hawk Springs $12,180 $44 $2,374 Keyhole $176,942 $1,501 $33,288 Medicine Lodge $13,674 $294 $2,323 Seminoe $46,854 $1,469 $7,314 Sinks Canyon $15,036 $282 $2,613 South Pass City $17,685 $36 $3,487 Trail End $8,226 $172 $1,404 All Locations $1,346,298 $12,354 $250,124
Source: LSO analysis of SPHS data.
LSO calculated the average monthly fee revenues for each location for the months of October through April, which is considered the off-season. LSO also calculated the average monthly fee revenues for each location for the peak months of May through September. This information demonstrates the seasonal nature of the fee collection program, and the differences in the volume of fees collected at the various locations.
APPENDIX E
Analysis on Compliance with Fees
Visitation, Revenue per visitor, Average Hours of Visitor Stays 2000
Average Hours of Visitor Location Type of Fees Visitor Days Visitation Revenue per Visitor Stay Boysen Camping & Daily-use 588,386 144,527 $0.66 48.9 Buffalo Bill Camping & Daily-use 38,891 53,576 $0.87 8.7 Curt Gowdy Camping & Daily-use 77,493 85,562 $1.08 10.9 Glendo Camping & Daily-use 744,666 209,589 $2.37 42.6 Guernsey Camping & Daily-use 349,387 86,691 $2.12 48.4 Hawk Springs Camping & Daily-use 47,411 18,719 $0.65 30.4 Keyhole Camping & Daily-use 290,495 201,615 $0.88 17.3 Seminoe Camping & Daily-use 107,601 21,926 $2.14 58.9
Source: LSO Analysis of SPACR data.
Revenue per visitor can be used as a rough gauge for compliance. However, revenue is impacted by factors other than compliance, such as volume of visitors, length of stay, and the type of fees charged. LSO compared revenue per visitor for the parks charging camping and daily-use fees and found there may be indications of lower compliance at Boysen and Hawk Springs. Boysen and Hawk Springs have lower revenues per visitor while having an average length of stay per visitor that is similar to other parks.
There are some caveats to this analysis, and the revenue per visitor number should be considered with caution. The measure of revenue per visitor is problematic because SPHS reports its visitation statistics are unreliable, since individual parks and sites do not always collect visitation data in a uniform manner. These issues with visitation statistics could distort the revenue per visitor measure used in this analysis. While SPHS reports its visitation numbers are not uniform, they do believe the year-to-year comparison is valid and the visitation numbers are generally useful in understanding volume of visitors at a particular location.
SPHS has developed a computer software program that relates raw data regarding car counts to the results of a 1997 visitor survey which yielded information about how many visitors are in a car, how many times the car goes over a counter, and the number of days visitors stay, plus other information. This is how SPHS has produced visitation and visitor day statistics. LSO calculated “average hours of visitor stay” by using SPHS’s figure for “visitor days,” which is 12 visitor hours accumulated continuously or simultaneously by one or more visitor, dividing by visitors, and multiplying by 12 hours.
APPENDIX F
Wyoming & Surrounding States' Park System Data
Year State Park Fees Established Type of Fees CO ID MT NE SD UT WY Camping Fees 1976 1965 1989 1921 1972 1957 1973 Daily Use or Entrance Fees 1965 1982 1989 1978 1978 1957 1992
Source: LSO analysis of Wyoming and surrounding park systems’ 2000 data.
Total State Park Acreage CO ID MT NE SD UT WY Total Acreage 208,469 50,000 33,532 137,855 100,000 113,799 122,280
Source: LSO analysis of Wyoming and surrounding park systems’ 2000 data.
Number and Types of State Park Areas State State Parks Other State Park Areas Colorado 40 N/A Idaho 26 N/A Montana 41 14 affiliated lands Nebraska 19 (including 11 historical parks) 66 recreation areas 1 recreation trail 60 lakeside areas South Dakota 13 38 recreation and nature areas 1 historic site Utah 45 (10 heritage, 7 scenic, 28 recreational) N/A 21 historic sites Wyoming 12 2 archeological sites 1 recreation area
Source: LSO analysis of Wyoming and surrounding park systems’ 2000 data.