Alberta 'Optimizing' Parks

[Brent.ff]

Moving this over from the camping thread to keep that on topic.

A quick summary of impacts:
https://albertaparks.ca/media/649618...outhern-ab.pdf

https://albertaparks.ca/news-events/

"Twenty parks will have full or partial closures in 2020. Some of these will be full park closures, where the entire site will be closed to public access. Others will have partial closures, where either their campgrounds or specific facilities are closed to public access, with the remaining park areas open, but non-serviced.

Non-serviced means that services, such as garbage collection and grounds-keeping do not occur in the remaining accessible park areas.

Shortened operating seasons (late opening and early closures) in some provincial campgrounds (check Reserve.AlbertaParks.ca or park-specific websites).
Beginning fall 2020, there will be no groomed cross-country track setting in the three main areas traditionally groomed by government staff in the Kananaskis Region. These areas are: Peter Lougheed, Mt. Shark and Kananaskis Village area. Grooming will continue to occur at the Canmore Nordic Centre. Track-setting will continue to occur in the West Bragg Creek area, done by the West Bragg Creek Trails Association.
Closures of Barrier Lake and Elbow Valley visitor information centres, and Dinosaur Provincial Park comfort camping.
Service fee increases:

Increase of $3 on the base camping rate at most Alberta Parks campgrounds.
A $1 increase for each applicable service fee related to power, water, sewers and showers (where those services are provided).
A $1 increase to equestrian corral fees at backcountry sites Kananaskis Region.
A $10 increase for sites that were at the low end of the fee range charged for comfort camping and group camping. This will only affect those sites that were at the low end of the fee range. Please see group camping and comfort camping for details on costs.
"

All to save 4 million bucks over three years. Yet 30 million annually to the war room that couldn't even get their logo right after two tries.

Im fine withe increase for payment, but privatizing public lands is a terrible idea. Let alone treating Parks as a direct revenue generator. The intrinsic value of parks, and the spin offs for commercial revenue is huge..

[FraserB]

It already exists in Alberta, which a lot of people don't realize because they don't really operate much differently than a site managed by Alberta Parks. It's not carte blanche to jack rates as the operator sees fit.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It already exists in Alberta, which a lot of people don't realize because they don't really operate much differently than a site managed by Alberta Parks. It's not carte blanche to jack rates as the operator sees fit.

I dont have a problem with someone else managing the site through a RFP to get the best product for the best price, while keeping the Parks under the Public realm. I have a problem with "Sites removed from the parks system would have their legal park designations removed, and could be open for alternate management approaches. This includes potential Park Partnerships. through sale or transfer to another entity"

"Sites removed from the parks system allow a greater range of uses that were previously not possible under government regulation. Successful sale or transfer to a third party will enable these sites to continue to be part of the community while generating new economic opportunities"

[Thaco]

Gonna suck for campers, it's nice to have a single unified booking site/method right now, booking at private campgrounds is a nightmare... just another thing Kenney doesn't see value in so if he doesn't need it, nobody does.

[ExtraSlow]

I don't have time to go deeply into this, but I can't see any way that this will be a good thing for me personally.
As always, details matter, and I think most details haven't been released.

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I dont have a problem with someone else managing the site through a RFP to get the best product for the best price, while keeping the Parks under the Public realm. I have a problem with "Sites removed from the parks system would have their legal park designations removed, and could be open for alternate management approaches. This includes potential Park Partnerships. through sale or transfer to another entity"

"Sites removed from the parks system allow a greater range of uses that were previously not possible under government regulation. Successful sale or transfer to a third party will enable these sites to continue to be part of the community while generating new economic opportunities"

yep, if they lose their designations it removes a lot of restrictions and opens them up to development, which could mean anything.

[dirtsniffer]

Just like everything private enterprise will run these assets much more efficiently than the government ever could.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just like everything private enterprise will run these assets much more efficiently than the government ever could.

So do that, but don’t sell the land such that we have forfeit it for future generations

[roopi]

When did Alberta start considering the future generations?

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just like everything private enterprise will run these assets much more efficiently than the government ever could.

you ever been to public vs private camgrounds? enjoy 2-3x the user fees, private prices out a lot of people

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

you ever been to public vs private camgrounds? enjoy 2-3x the user fees, private prices out a lot of people

Efficiently for the business, not necessarily the end-user.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

you ever been to public vs private camgrounds? enjoy 2-3x the user fees, private prices out a lot of people

It depends if they allow them to be turned into “RV resorts” or simply keep them as private managed campgrounds. If they are getting rid of underperforming areas, I doubt there would be a huge incentive to turn the area into an RV resort. The current privately managed campgrounds are still priced in line with other Alberta parks sites, so they’d probably try to keep them priced the same to stay competitive. That assumes Alberta parks doesn’t retain ownership and just farms out the operation

[dirtsniffer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So do that, but don’t sell the land such that we have forfeit it for future generations

I agree to a point. There are many locations I would hate to see closed or sold off. But I'm sure there are some that the province wouldn't miss and I don't think we know what the entire plan is yet.

I do know that we are facing a huge deficit as a province and I think we need to address it.

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It depends if they allow them to be turned into “RV resorts” or simply keep them as private managed campgrounds. If they are getting rid of underperforming areas, I doubt there would be a huge incentive to turn the area into an RV resort. The current privately managed campgrounds are still priced in line with other Alberta parks sites, so they’d probably try to keep them priced the same to stay competitive. That assumes Alberta parks doesn’t retain ownership and just farms out the operation

I mean real private, not just privately managed, which is most likely what a lot of these will become.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree to a point. There are many locations I would hate to see closed or sold off. But I'm sure there are some that the province wouldn't miss and I don't think we know what the entire plan is yet.

I do know that we are facing a huge deficit as a province and I think we need to address it.

this is like $5 mil savings, its a drop in the bucket.

[dirtsniffer]

Sources?

[AndyL]

A bunch of the parks are already privately managed and run. All down 940 into the crowsnest is one operator I can think of. No you can't book it on the Alberta government website. So that doesn't change.

Why they'd not setup a lease on say chain lakes for the season - I could pull that operation together by may 1st... That's a big one to close. That's stupid.

Why does it cost us 5million to run these though? Should be revenue positive.

I don't think the Ontario government sets any tracks for skiing in their province - the Nordic center is one thing but the users groups do it elsewhere...

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why does it cost us 5million to run these though? Should be revenue positive.

A lot of the PRAs don’t have fees associated with them as they are just parking spots with toilets and tables, usually around good hiking trails. I don’t have the link handy but the spin off economics of these sites are huge when you add in gas, outdoor gear, outdoor clothes, etc.

[ExtraSlow]

I think campgrounds on the whole probably are revenue positive. It's just associated costs for the rest of the park or recreation area that doesn't generate direct revenue.

Did we decide that I was wrong about those PRA campgrounds along 940 south and they had been in the hands of one private operator continously?

[AndyL]

http://rockymountaincamping.ca/index.htm

These guys have been running a large chunk for 15+ years that I remember.

Having the campground operators empty trash cans and pump out the crapper when needed - isn't outside their scope or particularly expensive if their already in the area to manage campsites.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://rockymountaincamping.ca/index.htm

These guys have been running a large chunk for 15+ years that I remember.

Having the campground operators empty trash cans and pump out the crapper when needed - isn't outside their scope or particularly expensive if their already in the area to manage campsites.

Yeah, I had it in my mind that they lost the contract at some point. I know they kept the website up. Maybe I was just wrong, or maybe that one guy I talked to just got fired and I misunderstood?