North Carolina State Parks - Heads Up!

Wills6.4 Hemi wrote:
Brian, am I reading it correctly that its a $5 a night increase? I am OK with that with all the money we have tied up in RV's it seems minimal to me but I understand the shock if you did not expect it. Will

Yeah...but it's not across the board...it's variable...I have no issue with an increase...but I think a couple bucks would suffice....I just don't understand how raising a price (over most of the true camping season is going to increase traffic. Is lowering the price a few bucks when it's freezing cold, possibility of getting snow, going to increase traffic? I doubt it. I do like the fact that it could deter those that fill up the weekends and holiday weekends so far in advance. For around the same price you can get full hook ups. We love the state park, but we know it's not going to drive us to stay there. One of the reasons we stay in a state park is the fact of it' pricing. While we have no problem spending $80 at a park on the beach in a tourist area, going to a state park with less amenities and lower prices is a good middle ground.

FWIW...the state park is hard to get into during the summer weekends....so i don't think it's all about increasing traffic....

Forgot to add...there's a $3 per night reservation fee...So that $30/night is actually $33/night. Before it was $22/night plus the reservation fee...so actual in crease of $8 without the reservation fee...went up nearly 30% (27.5% to be exact.) Wonter time, it dropped $2 (before $3 fee).

At first I thought that this made sense.
Lower fees when it is colder/less desirable to camp.
Higher fees when it is always crowded and full.
And in that sense it does make sense.

But I just checked to be sure, and yes there is a $3 reservation fee PER NIGHT.
This is clearly just a money grab on behalf of the park (I'm not commenting on whether the state parks need more money). The reservation site says this is a cost of processing the reservation.

I've run a camping program that goes through a reservation system and the cost is really the same whether you reserve for 1 day or for 14 days. Actually less on-the-ground cost because the host doesn't have to change the cards at the site if you are there for 14 days. So they should be charging a flat fee for making a reservation for a site, not a per day reservation fee.

wbwood wrote:

Wills6.4 Hemi wrote:
Brian, am I reading it correctly that its a $5 a night increase? I am OK with that with all the money we have tied up in RV's it seems minimal to me but I understand the shock if you did not expect it. Will

Yeah...but it's not across the board...it's variable...I have no issue with an increase...but I think a couple bucks would suffice....I just don't understand how raising a price (over most of the true camping season is going to increase traffic. Is lowering the price a few bucks when it's freezing cold, possibility of getting snow, going to increase traffic? I doubt it. I do like the fact that it could deter those that fill up the weekends and holiday weekends so far in advance. For around the same price you can get full hook ups. We love the state park, but we know it's not going to drive us to stay there. One of the reasons we stay in a state park is the fact of it' pricing. While we have no problem spending $80 at a park on the beach in a tourist area, going to a state park with less amenities and lower prices is a good middle ground.

FWIW...the state park is hard to get into during the summer weekends....so i don't think it's all about increasing traffic....

Forgot to add...there's a $3 per night reservation fee...So that $30/night is actually $33/night. Before it was $22/night plus the reservation fee...so actual in crease of $8 without the reservation fee...went up nearly 30% (27.5% to be exact.) Wonter time, it dropped $2 (before $3 fee).

I see your point. I only stay a state parks every now and then. I will say we stayed Carolina Beach SP over the summer and some of the sites now have full hookups. It is a very nice well kept park. Will

It boils back to my original post. The state parks need to be self sufficient and not totally dependent on taxpayers for funding. If the parks seem to have good weekend crowds they need to use it as a funding source. For those that want bargain priced camping they reduced rates for non peak times. Should be win for everyone.
Solid funding is not a bad thing. Compare that to CT. where I have read they are facing closing state parks.

wbwood wrote:
Was looking at Labor Day weekend for Stone Mountain State Park in North Carolina. Saw a price of $30/night. Was caught off guard as it was $25 with the reservation fee in the past (water/electric). I don't mind an increase, but that much through me off guard. I emailed them to inquire about it and below is the information I received.

Mr. Wood:

North Carolina's State Parks has begun a program of variable pricing, as regards its campsite accommodations and amenities. So, for example, an RV/trailer site which has water and electric (50amp) service might be $20 in January and the same site might be $25 or $30 in July. Similarly, in any given month, the more popular sites may have a slightly higher rent than those less often occupied. The intent of the program is to increase year-round attendance at all of our parks, including Stone Mountain State Park.

Right now, on our Central Reservation Site (CRS) RV sites at Stone Mountain State Park with water and 50 amp electric services, on loop B, are $20 per night, per the attached link.

http://northcarolinastateparks.reserveamerica.com/campsiteSearch.do

Let me know if you have any further questions regarding this matter or any other matter pertaining to North Carolina's State Parks.

Best regards,
Steve Livingstone

I must be not comprehending it correctly because I don't understand how raising rates is improving attendance. It does help with those that reserve out the weekends way far in advance. But I don't see how it will improve attendance. Any have any insight?

Increasing rates during periods of high attendance, is a good way to increase revenue. As pointed out before hotels have been doing this forever. Doing correctly it will not affect attendance and will add dollars to the SP coffers.
Since we stated hosting it really has opened up our eyes to the cost and work required to keep a great SP system running.
We are just finishing a month of winter hosting on the Oregon Coast, this is a combination of taking care of winter campers, recovering from summer use and prepping for the summer visitors.
DW and I are really looking forward to starting full time hosting starting at retirement in June!

Wills6.4 Hemi wrote:
I see your point. I only stay a state parks every now and then. I will say we stayed Carolina Beach SP over the summer and some of the sites now have full hookups. It is a very nice well kept park. Will

I could barely get my truck through that place. Tight and hot as a match.

lawnspecialties wrote:

Wills6.4 Hemi wrote:
I see your point. I only stay a state parks every now and then. I will say we stayed Carolina Beach SP over the summer and some of the sites now have full hookups. It is a very nice well kept park. Will

I could barely get my truck through that place. Tight and hot as a match.

Our site was over a hundred foot long and 40-50 foot wide as were all the full hook up sites.

Lantley wrote:
It boils back to my original post. The state parks need to be self sufficient and not totally dependent on taxpayers for funding. If the parks seem to have good weekend crowds they need to use it as a funding source. For those that want bargain priced camping they reduced rates for non peak times. Should be win for everyone.
Solid funding is not a bad thing. Compare that to CT. where I have read they are facing closing state parks.

I totally agree the parks should be "self sufficient". Stop all State Funding, take the amount of revenue it generated last yr., divide this by 365 days, and that is what the fee per day will be for this yr. Do this each yr. and keep the taxpayer that does not use the park out of the figures. If there is a deflict in funds, then raise the fee or reduce the benefits.