229 



fees to the federal government, or about 2.2 percent of the total 

 revenues generated.* The remaining permittees either paid flat 

 fees or were not operating. 



In our 1993 report, we concluded that the fees generated under 

 GRFS do not ensure that the Forest Service receives fair market 

 value for the use of its lands. When GRFS was put in place 30 

 years ago, it was intended that the rates would be adjusted 

 periodically to reflect the current economic conditions, but that 

 has not happened. We recommended that the Forest Service develop a 

 simplified fee system that ensures that the government receives 

 fees that are based on fair market value. 



At the time of our 1993 report, the ski industry had proposed 

 a simplified fee system. The industry proposed a progressive fee 

 system based on the gross sales from all ski lifts and ski school 

 operations. However, this proposal did not ensure that the fees 

 collected from ski areas represent fair market value. Ski industry 

 officials said that in developing their system they did not attempt 

 to determine fair market value but instead aimed to generate fees 

 comparable to the total fees generated under GRFS. 



The Forest Service, as was the case at the time of our report, 

 is developing a new fee system that agency officials have said 

 would represent fair market value. Forest Service officials would 

 like to implement this new fee system for the 1996-1997 ski season. 



COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION 



We would now like to discuss the four bills currently before 

 this Subcommittee. While these bills differ, each proposes 



'The $13.5 million in fees from ski operations is part of the $35 

 million figure mentioned earlier for revenues generated by all 

 concessioners. 



