Military Campground Price Complaints

I work for the gov't (though not with MWR or DOD) and can tell you that all gov't entities are hurting. It's not about pricing someone out or raising prices for profit or competition or whatever else people are thinking. The prices charged are what it takes to run the facilities and maintain the standards. Be glad MWR can adjust prices to maintain the services or the facilities and services would probably close down if they didn't have the visitation.

Martin64 wrote: all gov't entities are hurting. It's not about pricing someone out or raising prices for profit or competition or whatever else people are thinking. The prices charged are what it takes to run the facilities and maintain the standards. Be glad MWR can adjust prices to maintain the services or the facilities and services would probably close down if they didn't have the visitation.

Martin - Yes, you are correct in that many entities are hurting, but the reasons for that are as varied as there are “hurting” entities. MWR/NAF typically operates the clubs, bowling alleys, shooting/skeet ranges, golf courses, aero clubs, pools, outdoor recreation, campgrounds, plus other operations that I have surely missed. For a variety of reasons, many do not draw a sufficient number of customers to remain profitable. As of October 1, 2012, DOD directed all MWR activities to be self-sustaining, or suffer reduction of staff and/or possible closure! Many of the listed functions are not self-sustainable; CONUS clubs typically cannot compete with their off base counterparts; aero clubs and shooting/skeet ranges have limited appeal; bowling alleys on some installations seem to do well, but not so much on others; while most golf courses seem to be doing OK, some are not and have been opened up to the local civilians; not every MCG is located in a garden spot and they often suffer – usage of several MCGs is now available to the local civilian population. The answer is often a “rob Peter to pay Paul” mentality; increasing the fees at the profitable operations in order to assist in the funding of those not so profitable functions. In view of the DOD directive and our current Federal fiscal approach, I am certain that will not continue, which will result in closure of many base activities.

JMHO - John

JohnandMari,
Are you saying that each individual activity has to be self sustaining or that each base MWR has to be self sustaining? It was my understanding that it was each base MWR. This was why the profitable ones were supporting others.

I believe that it should be each individual activity. If there isn't enough interest in something, why should the others be burdened with supporting it. But you also shouldn't apply civilian bookkeeping to military bases. One example;

Gun Clubs on bases that are sharing firing ranges used for military readiness purposes should not be charged for the capital equipment, general upkeep, or any other expense that would be there even if the club didn't exist. (it's been my experience with these that the club was actually the one that paid for a lot of the improvements and upkeep to the range.

Outdoor Activities Rental Centers that utilize excess warehouses should not be charged with the capital costs of the struture. Rent maybe, but they should also get a credit for keeping the structure from falling apart. It's been proven that an abandoned building costs more in the long run than an occupied one.

In the case of most of the campgrounds, the land is already there, the landscaping/lawn-mowing would continue without the campgrounds, and they use volunteers for daily operations. Offhand the only overhead they have is the bathhouse (and some don't even have that) and the utilities. Of course since the MWR itself doesn't generate any income and does have it's own overhead, the activities it runs would kick in for that. You also would have to give some credit to the campground for providing temporary housing for PCS/TAD active duty people.

This is why I can't see how ANY FamCamp can justify charging over $30. And for that price I'd expect a laundry, free WiFi, paved roads, concrete hard-sites, picnic tables, BBQ's, and a kids playground. Just compare that to my first post to see the list of what the civilian parks can offer for $49.

I've stayed at some of the top rated FamCamps for $17/night! And at others that had less to offer except they were on the coast or near a tourist draw that wanted in excess of $30. There is something fishy here!!

One thinga that always interests me is using the comps in pricing for civilian counterparts.

First, when we all enlisted or received a commission, we agreed to a specific pay grade/rate and for the 'less wages' we were told we get medical care, MWR services, mess hall, a bed, etc.

Now, as budget constraints or 'just because' we get raise in fees for the MWR services. Lets don't even talk about medical at this point, let's just say our retirement and other agreements based on what we 'give to our country' and has nothing to do with 'compare to civilians" - civilians did not go to war and defend themselves, we did that. SO, why does anyone even imagine that a comparative issues exists here. No way !!

And, now we find our fees raised. And I don't believe for one second that MCG fees are as high as some claim. It's become a cash cow for some. I would have no problem paying any fee if it could be proved to me that it really does cost what I pay, fine charge me, and I'll either pay it or go away.

But, please don't insult us by telling us the fees need to compete with civilians - a no brainer - or tell me the raise in fees is for cover costs (where are the costs that equate to civilians - half is volunteer, grounds no rent, power grid in place).

SO, neither one makes sense - just charge me as if it's still one of the benefits we earned ... and if it costs more prove it before MWR taps into our wallets, and uses an unreasonable excuse to justify it.

We get 1.7% raise, in a national COLA statement, and if that's true, why do many costs jump 10-15-20% (look at fuel) ... pretty odd comparison figures.

I won't even pretend to know what all the fees pay for. But one of the areas we have are the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (aka Glamis) and it is a fee area. Glamis is way bigger than an rv park but if the fees arean't there then services suffer no matter how big the asset is. Labor is a big part of any program. Throw in the costs of vehicle operation and maintenance (to include fuel, tires, vehicle services). Now throw in what it costs to keep the lights on. Mow the grass, trim the hedges, and pay for trash collection. Change a/c filters in the club house, maintain the ice machine, change filters on the drinking fountain and change out the bad breakers on the sites that need it. Now buy ink cartridges, paper, pay the rent on the big printers, pay the phone bill and internet service. I'm not even talking about the bowling alley, golf course (if there is one), the hobby shop and all the gear in gear issue, the towels equipment and up keep of the gym. I'm talking about just the rv parks and facilities. And not any up grades, just trying to maintain a standard. Very few ares have year round visitation so all the revenue has to be collected in a "season". So all the fees are brought in during a 4 to 6 month span while the bills have to be paid throughout the entire year.

There's very little "wiggle room" for upgrades. When something wears out, especially in a rv park like setting, all the assets throughout the park have to be replaced at the same time. Any fire rings, picnic tables, hose bibs normally wear out about the same time so you replace them all. You can usually defer any maintenance costs for a year or two after you do a mass replacement but you have to come up with a lump sum to do the mass replacement. That means you try to rat-hole funds, apply for grants, ask for help from "partners" or request additional funds to cover the costs.

It's a balancing act and you try as hard as you can to maintain a standard. Some places are easier to balance than others and I'm sure I haven't covered it all, but it's hard and getting harder. I guess it's all going to come down to what dollar value a person is willing to spend. Do the cost comparison in the area between a civilian park and an MWR park and decide just where it is you're going to put your money to stay.

Martin64 - I agree with you, pay what we want to pay and stay where we want to stay.

What puzzles me is the reason for "raising fees" - if the fees go toward upgrades, tell us that, or tell us it's for overhead - but the overhead for a civilian CG is much higher than MCG.

Civilian = land rent, manager, employees, insurance, PROFIT, PROFIT, etc. Items that don't come into play with MCG.

So, when a MCG says "We have to raise rates to compete with civilian rates" it makes no sense. Why does the military have to compete with any one, any civilian.

If we have "better" CGs and nicer facilities - that costs something, and we should pay for it as determined by what we get, not by how much a civilian charges. It's apples and oranges.

Eventually, we end up with no benefit to staying at MCG, and if the rates continue to rise for limited reasons (like MCG funds to Golf) then we'll lose the MCGs because there will be no good reason to camp there. If it cost less in a civilian CG, the MCG's will get less customers, and will raise the rates even higher so less customers pay the cost to operate, so each one pays more.