263 



ski instructors/patrol are necessary or appropriate? Should the 

 ability to use the pass on a day off be considered a gratuity? Is 

 it "essential" for an employee to use his pass to get up on the 

 mountain as part of his job, and if so, how many days a week is it 

 necessary? We have even discussed whether hamburgers given to 

 employees at a discount (on or off Forest Service managed lands) 

 should generate a fee to the Forest Service. 



As can be readily seen, the "gratuities" policy can entail a 

 great deal of recordkeeping and, once again, time of lawyers, 

 accountants and other specialists working with Forest Service 

 auditors. 



4. The new formula will put all areas on an even footing by 

 eliminating the uneven application of GFA, private land, and 

 "gratuities" policies. At the same time, it will adopt OMB's 

 recommendation that larger areas pay a higher percentage of gross. 

 Increases in the fee charged on Forest Service lands will offset 

 those fees now being charged on private land. 



5. The new formula will provide some relief for the smaller and 

 typically less capitalized ski areas because the graduated rate of 

 H.R. 1527 will shift more of the burden to the larger areas who are 

 generally better able to pay. The reduction of recordkeeping and 

 audits required under the new system will also be particularly 

 helpful to the smaller areas. 



6. The new formula will enable ski areas to more readily plan 

 and budget for their future fee expenses. Predictability of costs 

 is important to business planning, particularly in this seasonal, 

 high risk business. 



7. The simplicity of the new formula will greatly reduce future 

 appeals and litigation. In addition, it will establish a uniform, 

 nationwide system that is far less subject, due to its simplicity, 

 to uneven interpretation and application by various. Forests, 

 regions or auditors. 



Previous Efforts to Reform the Ski Area Fee System 



In 1992, the ski industry supported legislation identical to 

 H.R. 1527 which passed the Senate and was reported out of the House 

 Agriculture Committee. Subsequent to the introduction of that 

 legislation in 1992, the Forest Service announced that it would 

 undertake a study to ultimately develop a new fee system 

 administratively. That 1992 Forest Service study was concluded in 

 1994. Late last year, the Forest Service abandoned the study and 

 its findings. This year the Forest Service announced that it would 

 undertake another study which we understand is now in progress. It 

 appears that after more than three years, the Forest Service is no 

 further along on this issue than it was in early 1992. The ski 

 industry has concluded that the Forest Service will not resolve 

 this issue administratively and therefore legislation is necessary. 



