Accommodations in Curry Village will change with the next concessions contract/David and Kay Scott
The recently issued prospectus for operation of the majority of Yosemite National Park's concession facilities includes several significant changes related to the park's lodging. Lodging, a major revenue generator for the winning bidder (and the National Park Service), is expected to generate from $52-$57 million in 2016, the year the new lease kicks in. This is approximately twice the amount the concessionaire is expected to generate in food and beverage sales during the same year. Retail sales generate approximately the same revenue as food and beverage. The new contract will be for 15 years with a beginning date of March 1, 2016.
The most significant lodging change is to occur at Curry Village, where the Park Service is planning to replace 52 canvas tents with cabins that include bathrooms. This will reduce the number of tent cabins at Curry to 351 and increase the number of cabins with bathrooms to 98. Curry also has 14 cabins without bathrooms and 18 motel-type rooms.
The prospectus also calls for removing 34 tent cabins (these are duplex units, meaning 17 structures would be removed) at Housekeeping Camp, leaving 232 of these units. In the High Sierra Camps, half the 22 tents at Merced Lake and four beds at Glen Aulin are to be removed.
The prospectus includes an especially stiff franchise fee of 8.6 percent of the concessionaire's annual gross revenues. Assuming the new cabins at Curry Village are completed on schedule before the end of the contract's seventh year, the franchise fee will increase by an additional six-tenths of 1 percent, resulting in a fee of over 9 percent. This compares with NPS fees of 4 percent at Mesa Verde and Sequoia/Kings Canyon national parks, 6 percent at Mount Rainier National Park, and 1 percent at Glacier Bay National Park.
In addition to a 9.2 percent franchise fee, the concessionaire is to pay an annual 2 percent repair-and-maintenance fee. Adding the California sales tax of 7.5 percent, a Mariposa County sales tax of .5 percent, a Mariposa County Transient Occupancy Tax of 10 percent, and a Mariposa County Tourism Business Improvement District Assessment of 1 percent, results in a guest at Yosemite Lodge paying $240 for a room (the price listed on the DNC site for an October stay), $27 of which represents NPS fees, plus another $45 in various sales taxes. Thus, a family staying in Yosemite Lodge will be paying over $70 a night in fees and taxes. An Ahwahnee stay would entail well over $100 per night in fees and taxes.
While the park's main concession facilities are in Yosemite Valley, the prospectus also covers concession operations at Badger Pass, Crane Flat, Glacier Point, Tuolumne Meadows, Wawona, White Wolf, and the High Sierra Camps. According to the NPS prospectus, each location ''¦. presents unique opportunities and challenges'¦.'
Comments
I find myself finally agreeing with EC. Some of the new thermarests are more comfy than most hotel matresses. I just dont get the campingphobes that need cheap motel 6 style accommodations inside national parks. I don't see how that's even feasible in a small area like Yosemite Valley. If you go into nature, should one expect all the amentities for cheap? I don't see how it can happen like that. Simple supply and demand.
Uh oh. I think I may need to rethink my postion ;)
Actually Gary, I think you and I may agree more than you think. Its the presentation that sometimes can be grating - on both sides.
Actually an interesting story on the topic - at least to me. I am a big camper. Hundreds of nights in a tent. My wife - not so much. I convinced her to go camping in Yellowstone. The deal was 2 days in the park then one day in a motel and then back to the park. We spent the first two nights in a tent in Grant Village and then after a day of fishing on the Lamar went to a motel in Cooke city. The Mrs. couldn't wait to get back to the Park. The accomodations were better in our tent than the motel in Cooke City - which cost 4x as much - as was the food and amenites. At $20(actually $29.58 including tax for an upcoming Aug 2014 stay) the NP front country campsites are a bargain and I can't imagine why anyone that could leave their home couldn't stay in one.
Some of us have done tons of camping, and can't any more. I'm not going to bother to run down my "terrible inflictions" for public dissection, but believe me - if I could, I would. When my wife and I got together a decade or so ago we tried many alternatives, but the state of my arthritis and other ailments is just prohibitively painful. That should not mean that I'm priced out of enjoying my national parks.
I wish I'd aged smarter and more gracefully, but stupidly I did my best to use myself up early. I envy our older statesmen here in this forum, still taking on hikes and projects at ages even older than myself.
I'm noticing some degree of able bodied versus not able bodied in this discussion, with some chest thumping on the part of the able. That's unfortunate. What has happened to me with wear and tear is the starting point of life for many Americans. I'd like to think all could get a benefit from our parks, and I hate that economics is making that less likely.
Rick, I can see your and Magera's point and I definitely think going to a park should be an affordable experience well below what it costs to go into an amusement park, etc. I've seen this debate many times before, and I have seen many call for non-profits to run the lodging, instead of corporate entities on our public lands. That way the profits go back into the park. Maybe that could cut costs down on lodging, but on the same token I cringe when I hear the call for more hostels, more hotels, more cabins, and more entities inside Parks to accomodate more and more people. The shear numbers of the 7 billion human swarm will overwhelm these spaces if those needs are met. I've been to Yosemite Valley a few times, and I always felt all that development was too heavy handed in its current iteration, and I never stayed in the Valley when I was there. I'm a believer that lodging opportunites should be developed outside of the parks.
And i'll probably be in your shoes too when I hit your age.
And there is a reason its not done. Corporate entities provide a better product at a lower cost than do non-profits.
So because you failed to take care of yourself you are entitled to low cost hotel rooms in a National Park? Were is Lee with his entitlement protests?
Sorry, I don't buy it. How much of the Park are you actually going to see and enjoy if you can't even move around a campsite? What possible movement is necessary at a campsite that isn't required in your own home or 5 star hotel?
Finally, there are things I could never do or can't do now. I certainly don't expect the world to alter its course to accomodate me.
I disagree with you on that, especially when there is not competition involved. Most corporate entities are out to make a big profit and maximize revenues. Non-profits have much different directives because of the limitations placed on their organizations. But, I don't know if there are comparable metrics to prove your case. I've never researched to see if there are any non-profits running lodging in any National Parks. My guess is there are not..