Tonto fees make unhappy campers (AZ Republic; Feb. 2, 2004)

[hikeaz]

SEE:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... fee02.html

[AK]

Geez! What next! Our federal government at its best yet again!

[big_load]

I'm surprised there is no mention of equipment malfunctions. Several times the trialhead machine has refused to accept any of my currency (and I brought plenty of spare $ based on previous experience). Maybe it has improved, but I don't know how they can fine people if the lot is unattended and the machines don't work.

Also, although I gladly pay to support NPS/NFS operating costs, I'm appalled by the profiteering that seems almost universal in these outsourcing arrangements. The government has been shortchanging the parks and forests for years, and now private industry is skimming their few alternate revenue sources without seeming to provide much benefit. I think the government should enforce stricter limits on the percentage of fees passed on to the rightful beneficiaries, perhaps as a condition for contract renewal and for approval to bid on other government contracts. Suppose we outsourced income tax collection and got the same pass-through rate. Do you think the Treasury Department and its constituency would tolerate such commercial exploitation as long as Interior and Agriculture have?

[Nighthiker]

Twice the self pay did not work for me and my my receipt had been removed from my jeep (top was not on) though taped to my windshield another time. One time I noted a cactus wren tearing my receipt off.

I have parked at the Walgreens on Power Road (for bike riding) with permission and noted a tow company stalking the parking lot.

I have parked on the shoulder of a road (both times at least thirty feet) and had DPS attach a tow order, once South of Payson a tow truck was parked in front of my jeep and the driver was attempting to hook up when I returned. Upon exchanging greetings he decided not to tow. I also located the DPS Officer and had a chat with him as well. I was quite nice to both men and listened to their explanation and cheerfully provided a rebuttal.

Our public land managers need to learn and provide postive customer service. Though they are charged to manage natural resources they should refrain from treating the public like human resources, mined, bulldozed, clearcut and herded for management objectives.

[Photosmith]

I'm surprised there is no mention of equipment malfunctions. Several times the trialhead machine has refused to accept any of my currency (and I brought plenty of spare $ based on previous experience). Maybe it has improved, but I don't know how they can fine people if the lot is unattended and the machines don't work.

Also, although I gladly pay to support NPS/NFS operating costs, I'm appalled by the profiteering that seems almost universal in these outsourcing arrangements. The government has been shortchanging the parks and forests for years, and now private industry is skimming their few alternate revenue sources without seeming to provide much benefit. I think the government should enforce stricter limits on the percentage of fees passed on to the rightful beneficiaries, perhaps as a condition for contract renewal and for approval to bid on other government contracts. Suppose we outsourced income tax collection and got the same pass-through rate. Do you think the Treasury Department and its constituency would tolerate such commercial exploitation as long as Interior and Agriculture have?

I can't speak to the use of automated parking pass machines since I haven't used one, but I've used plenty of vending machines with dollar feeders and such and am very well familiar with having perfectly valid US currancy refused by a picky money scanner. That is undoubtedly a problem that should be addressed.

As for "outsourcing" and whatever, you guys are really giving the government WAY too much credit. Do any of you know anyone who works for the government? I know several, including one extended family member of mine, and they all have so many jokes about how poorly things are run, how universally incompetant everyone is, and the scams that people pull and get away with on a daily basis.

I, on the other hand, work for a company that does outsourced work. If you think we are a "rich corporation" rolling in cash, you are again totally off the mark. We have to bid against other companies who desparately want the business and operate on some pretty thin margins. If we overcharge (by accident or by corporate fraud) we get REAMED by the issuer of the contract in fines, fees, and otherwise. If we undercharge and can't turn a profit, no one cares. They are happy to see us go out of business because they know there's 7 other contractors lined up waiting to take the business away from us. That is the real world.

[AK]

In response to Photosmith's reply:
My dad has worked for the Postal Service for over 20 years and has quite a few stories on how that branch of the government is run day to day. To sum it up he describes it as having the worlds largest case of rectal-crainial inversion.

[overrocked]

In response to hikeaz's reply: Twice , the machines would not take my money, i had to use a credit card:( If you are an illegal alien, does that mean you still have to pay? If you use a friend's car, and don't pay, does that mean your friend's credit rating will be affected? Why can't there be a day in court? Why does the superstitions have to be the first ones'? Who decided?

[big_load]

In response to Photosmith's reply:

The original story describes a bad situation: the company gets 14.9% of the fees ($0.60 per user), but $24 per citation. In other words, they have an incentive for the equipment not to work. Furthermore, depending on the total fine (amount not stated), the government could actually gets less money from the fine than if the user had paid or the equipment had worked. Obviously they can't get away with leaving the equipment broken all the time, but the incentive will be exploited to whatever extent the government will tolerate.

I don't consider 14.9% to be horrible gouging, but there are worse examples, especially where the fees are used to finance costly fee collection equipment installation and maintenance (e.g. E-Z Pass in NJ).

My main point is that fees should be an efficient means of generating revenue. If they are not, they should be discontinued. The fact that somebody profits from their collection does not justify their existence.

[hikeaz]

re. fines....
On page 21 (1st paragraph) of this Dept. of the Interior report it states, that regarding the USFS, that NONE of the fine monies are returned to the agency.

[Photosmith]

The original story describes a bad situation: the company gets 14.9% of the fees ($0.60 per user), but $24 per citation. In other words, they have an incentive for the equipment not to work.

Well that's easy enough to fix. Farm them out to separate contractors. This is like how Enron/Worldcom/Arthur Anderson, etc. all got in trouble. You can't have the same company in charge of two separate functions that do not work well together. For example, they all got in trouble by having crooked accountants and then crooked auditors, so they got away with it (at least for a while).

So what you have is the need to break out these two separate functions and source them to separate contractors. Contract A is for the establishment of a way to pay for parking passes. They get 15% of each parking pass they issue. Contract B is for enforcement of parking passes. They get to keep 30% of the fee and the other 70% goes to the parks service. Now sit back and think about it.

Each company wants to make as much money as possible. Company with contract A will be losing out any time their machines do not work because people will get frustrated and drive in the park anyway with no pass. Because Company B gets to keep the parking fine revenue, Company A gets NOTHING any time their machines are broken. Staring at a big fat zero for revenue will get Company A to act very quickly because any time their machines are broken, they don't make any money.

Company B on the other hand, barring any illegal activity like breaking the machines for Company A can only make money by enforcing the ticket policy. The better they are at ticketing vehicles that do not display their parking passes, the more money they make. Company A would be pretty happy to see Company B go out of business to be perfectly honest, because if they had 100% compliance, that means more money for Company A.

Then the only remaining issue is how best to handle people who chose not to support the parks service by buying their parking pass in the first place. I'll leave that for a later discussion. Certainly there is no rocket science involved in solving it though.

[hikeaz]

Let's recall that "Nationally"...
The Forest Service is spending its revenues from the fee programs in accordance with congressional requirements and the agency's spending priorities, according to the report. Congress authorized spending to improve the visitor experience and protect natural resources.

The agency collected $35 million in fees at 87 sites across the country in fiscal year 2001.

It spent 29 percent of the revenue on visitor services and operations, such as trash collection, campfire programs and "visitor satisfaction surveys." It spent 21 percent on facility maintenance and 33 percent on other activities such as improving facilities, protecting resources and "enforcing laws."

The Forest Service used fee revenue, as well as money from its taxpayer-funded budget to pay for fee collection activities in 2001, the report stated.

It spent about $5 million, or 17 percent of its total income from fees, on collection activities, the report stated.

And..HERE IS THE KICKER..."It also spent about $10 million from its annual budget to shore up its fee demonstration program. That money, including $1 million directly spent on fee collection activities, came from money appropriated by Congress, not fee revenue, the report stated.

Obviously, THAT 10M skews their percentages quite a bit.
Also, "Enforcement of laws" was EXcluded from the cost of collection, as well.

It's tough to be precise, but you can easily see that the cost of collection is closer to 35%-40% using their own numbers.

There is more than the percentage paid to the kiosk vendor making up the "cost of collection".

[plummer150]

No pay for me!

[Daryl]

Note: this post does not reccomend , ecourage, or suggest illegal activity. I'm simply asking a question...

How difficult is it to scan a receipt, photoshop the date, print it, and cut/roll it to match the machines output?

[mttgilbert]

sounds illegal to me...

... I like that...


And, not that difficult.

[azhiker96]

Last time I went into First water I picked up a couple hiking from Apache trail to the TH. They had taken a wrong turn and ended up at Canyon lake so they hitched a ride back to the turnoff for First water. I gave them a ride to the TH. They let me "recycle" their receipt. We should encourage more of this environmentally friendly activity.

[Kenny]

When I leave the trailhead or the lake I always look to recycle

I think that is how you make happy campers or boaters

I don't mind paying, but I would like to see more $ going to the FS not private companys, unless they pick up trash and provide security for the same $$ ....??

[ADGibson]

I'm just tired of these automated machines malfunctioning. The perfect example is Bartlett Lake. Those machines are down half the time. One morning we spent 25 minutes with 9 other guys trying to get one of the 3 machines to take our money or credit cards. None would work. Our solution was to exchange numbers and band together if one of us got a ticket. We were there all day and didn't have a problem so I guess it worked.

Paying a fee does seem redundant with it being public land. I still pay in hopes that it makes for a better tomorrow.