You are here

National Park Service, In Court Filing, Claims Xanterra Trying To Block Competition In Grand Canyon Concessions Business

Share

In a strongly worded response to Xanterra Parks & Resort's request for an injunction to remain in business past year's end on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park, lawyers for the National Park Service argue that the concessionaire is trying to thwart competition and feels its history on the rim entitles it to remain there.

Less than three weeks remain until Xanterra's current contract to operate lodging and dining facilities on the South Rim expires, and there is no temporary contract in place to ensure continued operation of the El Tovar Hotel, Bright Angel Lodge, Maswick Lodge, and other lodgings and restaurants beyond New Year's Eve. 

On December 16 a U.S. District Court judge in Denver is scheduled to hear arguments over Xanterra's request that the Park Service be barred from closing the South Rim lodging and dining operations on December 31 and allow the concessionaire to remain in business there until a new 15-year contract is awarded.

Doing so, the federal government counters in its 48-page response, would not maintain the "status quo," but rather upset it, cause competitive harm, and prevent the Park Service from making concessions contracts more competitive as Congress directed it to through the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.

"In its Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Xanterra stresses that it has operated at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon for over a century, as though this history constituted an entitlement to continued operations," the government's response reads. "Xanterra has resisted the Park Service'™s efforts to enhance competition for the South Rim concessions, complaining, for example, that the Park Service'™s $100 million buy-down of its LSI was 'not requested nor welcomed by Xanterra.'

"In an effort to maintain its advantageous position, Xanterra now seeks a preliminary injunction that would allow it to continue operating nearly all of the South Rim concessions, deprive Delaware North of the benefit of its successful bid for a new contract that includes some concessions that Xanterra now operates, prevent the Park Service from entertaining bids from any competitors, and limiting the terms of a temporary contract to essentially the terms of Xanterra'™s expiring contract '” all for the duration of this litigation."

Alternate Text
The clock is winding down on efforts to keep the El Tovar Hotel open past year's end/Xanterra Parks & Resorts

The standoff between the Park Service and Xanterra has been brewing for more than a year, and has laid open the problem of possessory interest, or "leaseholder surrender interest," in the National Park System. That interest essentially is built up as a concessionaire invests in properties it operates for the Park Service. If a new concessionaire is awarded a contract, it must pay the outgoing concessionaire the amount of LSI it has accumulated.

At the Grand Canyon, Xanterra's LSI was determined in 2013 to stand at $198 million -- "the highest amount associated with a single contract in Park Service history," according to the government's response to Xantera's request for an injunction. Park Service officials viewed that amount as a barrier to other companies that might be interested in operating the South Rim concessions, and a decision was made to 1) break the single concessions contract for the South Rim in two, and 2) buy down Xanterra's LSI by $100 million, a sum 88 park units contributed to earlier this year. 

It was in 2013 that the Park Service announced that it would split the single South Rim contract into two, and both Xanterra and Delaware North bid on the smaller of the two. This past August the Park Service announced that it was awarding the contract to Delaware North. That left the larger contract, known as the "001 Contract," up in the air. That contract had been extended three times to Xanterra after the initial contract expired. The third extension, which runs out this Dec. 31, is the last one allowed by law.

It's the contractual expiration of the 001 contract that is the "status quo," the government argues, not Xanterra's right to continue to run the concessions. If the court grants the injunction, it would go against the status quo, the government contends. Granting of an injunction also would deny Delaware North the contract it rightfully won for the other concessions on the South Rim, the motion argues.

"...Xanterra fails to show that it will suffer irreparable harm because of any actions by the Park Service. Instead, the alleged harms are the result of the expiration of Xanterra'™s existing contract (which has already been extended for the maximum period allowed by law) and its failure to be the successful bidder on one of the new contracts," the motion reads. " In addition, the balance of equities favors the Park Service. In contrast to Xanterra, whose alleged injuries are not traceable to any NPS action and are therefore illusory, an injunction would prevent the Park Service from exercising its lawful authority to execute a contract with Delaware North.

"In the larger scheme, it would also thwart the goal of fostering competition among prospective concessioners, and would introduce uncertainty into the concession contracting process going forward. Moreover, an injunction would be adverse to the public interest, because it would stymie the competitive process that helps ensure satisfactory service to Park visitors and a fair return to taxpayers."

Park officials did not respond Thursday to an inquiry into whether they have a plan for managing South Rim concessions if the injunction is denied and if a temporary 1-year contract is not awarded. However, in the government's response park officials said they were working hard to negotiate a temporary agreement. Too, they denied that visitors to the park would be greatly impacted if there's a lapse in hotel and restaurant operations.

"Even in the unlikely event that the Park Service is unable to enter into a temporary contract to address the services covered by the 001 Prospectus before the existing contract expires on December 31, 2014, the Park itself will remain open to day visitors and tent campers, and the concessions under the new 003 (Delaware North) Contract would be available, including an RV campground," the motion notes.

"Visitors may be inconvenienced by restaurant and other closures, but only a small minority will have planned to stay in concessioner lodging, and given the time of year, they will doubtless be able to find accommodations nearby. Nonetheless, even a short interruption of some services in the Park is not a desirable outcome, and NPS is working hard to prevent this. However, it is not in the public interest to keep all of the South Rim concessions open at any cost." 

 

Comments

Alfred-

But don't make this a victim issue. The only victim here is the park--what it was supposed to be and then never became once the developers got control of it.

Really?  You are playing into the stereotype of environmentalists and wilderness advocates as fundamentalists who are indifferent to humans.  The South Rim is certainly badly overdeveloped, but that isn't what is at issue here.  There are a bunch of people about to lose their jobs and housing, they'll have to pull their kids out of school and leave town.  If they were in this situation due to a proposal to remove some of the development, that would be one thing, a hard situation but needed in the long run.  But that isn't the case.  They are in this situation simply because a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats and managers appear to be failing at their jobs.  Come the new year, the failures will still be employed no matter what, and the working people will be packing up to leave.  We should all be able to spare some empathy for them, and disgust for the people who are screwing up.  It is possible to care about both the park and the people who work there.  


EC, your opinion tends to conclude that our highway system fixes itself and doesn't require repairs and subsidies.

Gary - our highway system is not subsidized.  It is payed for by gasoline taxes paid by those that drive on the highways and by car registration fees and taxes.  There is some cross state subsidization as states like Colorado pay more into the system then they get back and other pay less.  Ergo here in Colorado, more than 100% of our state and federal highways are paid by the users and there are no subsidies by non-users. Once again you pontificate upon a subject that you apparently have little knowledge of other than the false talking points the anti-oil crowd dispenses.


Just to add something that most would probably think not possible, we're headed, I believe, in that direction right now, incrementally.  Certainly a break from the thread here but in the big picture.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/a-greek-island--yours-for...



 As a 25 year resident of the grand canyon village I have seen many changes to the park.
This latest fiasco is but another of many.
The dis-mantling of the village has long been a goal here by the nature Nazis of the NPS. Now with their ax man  in place, having freshly broken up those pesky
concessionaires at Mount Ranier, let the games begin.
The new visitor center is in place. It is a fine transportation hub with a movie and 2 story outhouses with no money spared to become complete. A true "vision to
the future". I have a vision of removing the village and hotels and restaurants in order to replicate this fine facility with a movie of the canyon and 2 story
outhouses and fine transportation to keep the visitor safely behind glass. There will be no loss of experiencing this park to the visitor who has an rv or a tent,
as the snow plows will keep your nature experience in tact. Bring 3 shovels you must. One for the snow, one for the campfire and a great big one for the crap being
spewed out by the NPS.


"nature Nazis of the NPS"

 

Welcome to the discussion. That's a fine, level handed way of entering the discourse.


That's a fine, level handed way of entering the discourse.

Ah, once again, Rick goes on the personal attack rather than address the issues presented.


EC,

I wasn't aware that we had to pay a toll for every federal or state highway we use. Am I supposed to be paying a toll that i'm currently neglecting?

Personally, I think anyone that thinks they are entitled to live within a national park is missing the point of the organic act.  You shouldn't expect to ever have a permanent residence there, and that goes for even superintendents.


Well, Gary, that is better than "off the hook crazy."  Yes, nobody should expect to stay in employee housing if they stop working.  But in the meantime, people work for decades, raise their kids in employee housing, live their lives in these little park towns.  As long as they are doing their job well, they have every right to be angry if they lose their job, and the housing that comes with it, to somebody else's mistakes.  Remote western parks have some of the last company towns in this country.  The power that gives management over workers' lives is unnavoidable, and people need to understand that when they go into that line of work.  But it is still reasonable to expect management to do their jobs well, and to be angry when they don't.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.