Forest Service site fee proposal

[natedawg1604]

By chance has anyone heard when the Forest Service will decide on their fee proposal issued about a year ago for radio site users? For some reason I remember a prior RR thread about this but I couldn't find it in the archives. Earlier today I was reading through some of the comments submitted in the Federal Register and it seemed like virtually ever comment expressed great opposition, some of the comments were pretty interesting. Notably it's not just ham radio operators who are unhappy with the proposed fee, many governmental entities with sites on USFS land submitted opposition letters as well. One interesting comment was from representatives of the Colorado DTR system. Here is an excerpt

The USFS currently has in excess of 200 mobile and handheld radios on the Colorado public safety radio network utilizing five agency assigned talk groups, as well as mutual aid talk groups available for interoperability with local first responders. Colorado earnestly requests the continued exemption and waiver of the USFS proposed administrative fees based on the aforementioned reasons. Alternatively, Colorado may be compelled to assess fees on all federal partners in an effort to recover these costs.

If the fee goes into effect, I wonder how many state agencies would start charging more fees to Forest Service users who have talkgroups on state trunked systems?

 

[mmckenna]

If the fee goes into effect, I wonder how many state agencies would start charging more fees to Forest Service users who have talkgroups on state trunked systems?

Unfortunately, the financial analysts that pay the bills on these sorts of things really dislike the word "free". That opens up a lot of issues on how to track things and how things get handled with agreements change. Where I work, they want to see signed agreements and some sort of cost recovery. It pisses off people that are accustomed to getting things for free, but it's the reality.

While it's easy for an agency to start complaining that their free site access is now going to cost money, the reality is that it's a good idea.
No doubt they'll pass the cost along to the users, especially the USFS. The financial people on either end won't have a problem with that.

As sites need to be upgraded, hardened or otherwise changed, someone needs to pay the bill. Having a bunch of free riders at the site complicates things.
Sure, it's easy to give a ham radio club a bit of rack space, but eventually the site needs work, and how do you squeeze money out of the tenants when there's no agreement, no money being charged, or no other way of recovering costs? Usually what stands in the way of a site upgrade is one user that doesn't have the funds or staff to move equipment to new racks, install proper protection, pay for generator replacement, fuel, etc.

Been there, done that, got the headache. I still have a few "free" agreements in place with some local agencies. It works out OK, but only because they have the resources to chip in when the site gets upgraded, and it doesn't attract the attention of the financial analysts.
It's also one of a few reasons why I don't let ham repeaters at my sites.

 

[AK9R]

I see that USFS reopened the comment period for another 30 days on March 1, 2022. But, I can't find where they made a final decision.

I know that the ARRL has tried to fight this. Unfortunately, the FCC has been sitting on several amateur radio rule change requests for years, so I wouldn't expect the USFS to move any faster. This was on the ARRL website almost a year ago: ARRL to Oppose Forest Service Administrative Fees for Amateur Facilities

 

[rescuecomm]

It's a raw deal when the amateur radio group is asked to pay site fees and there is 20 hams chipping in to keep a repeater on the air. The anti-hams should delight about this.

 

[mmckenna]

It's a raw deal when the amateur radio group is asked to pay site fees and there is 20 hams chipping in to keep a repeater on the air. The anti-hams should delight about this.

I'm a ham. Have been for decades. Some might think I'm anti-ham. I'm not. I'm realistic.

Hams may want a free ride and claim "emergency communications" as the justification.
Well, all those other public safety agencies are paying to use the sites for legit emergency communications. Maybe they should all get free access also.

Or, maybe hams should figure out how to fund their sites.
If "emergency communications" was really the need, then there is a big benefit to them not using all the same infrastructure as the existing public safety systems.

 

[rescuecomm]

Just means they will lose the site. Not a real problem because everyone has a cellphone.

 

[natedawg1604]

Just means they will lose the site. Not a real problem because everyone has a cellphone.

I thought that's what HF or ham repeaters were for, when the cell phone towers go down for weeks at a time....

 

[rescuecomm]

There are ham repeaters that are granted site access to provide backup communications for a particular purpose. However, in my experience, far more get installed because somebody knows somebody. The repeater is for the group to use as a social gathering point. Amatuer radio is a hobby for most so there is no public service obligation expected nor to be given. Site fees will take these repeaters off the air.
Some repeaters might be on the air during a grid down situation if they are sited at a 911 rated location with generators or at a EBS broadcast station that has backup generators. Otherwise, most clubs don't have the resources or the space to provide standby power.

There is usually a 30 day vacate requirement if situations require it such as site ownership change.

 

[mmckenna]

Otherwise, most clubs don't have the resources or the space to provide standby power.

If ham clubs were serious about their "emergency" roles, they'd stop their infighting, shut down all the underutilized machines, combine forces, and put up a decent system with proper backup power, redundancy, etc.

 

[rescuecomm]

There are no emergency roles. During a state wide net on a linked repeater system, check-ins were asked to indicate affiliations with ARES, RACES, or other. Out of about 45 hams, only six were affiliated. Most ham radio repeaters are simple affairs using retired Motorola gear inside of someone else's building.

 

[mmckenna]

There are no emergency roles. During a state wide net on a linked repeater system, check-ins were asked to indicate affiliations with ARES, RACES, or other. Out of about 45 hams, only six were affiliated. Most ham radio repeaters are simple affairs using retired Motorola gear inside of someone else's building.

That's what I'd expect. Ham radio lost its way and ARRL played a big role in that.

 

[tweiss3]

Ok, so I went and briefly read the proposal dated 12/22/2021. I had some initial thoughts based on comments, but I figured I should at least skim the actual language before I make a comment. If I am reading that correctly, the proposal is $1400/year for a radio site (use authorization). That is $117/month, which I certainly don't think is an unreasonable site rental cost. I know many that pay significantly more that that. Is it free? No, but perhaps it will force individuals/groups to actually cooperate and co-exist on fewer sites. This will get rid of a few, and honestly its probably needed. In all reality there are too many pairs that are paper repeaters as it is anyways, let alone those repeaters that are Idle 363 days out of the year, ready in case of an emergency.

In all honesty, if I could get in a good site for $1400/year, I'd jump on that.

 

[k6cpo]

The Federal Government never does anything fast, including the FCC. I've been sitting on a pending application for renewal of my license for over a year. Thank goodness I can still operate under FCC rules.

 

[rescuecomm]

I don't think the pro-ham agencies had a lot to do with it. They did manage to keep most of the HF and VHF bands intact. As far as ARES, most new hams wanting emergency communications are thinking of immediate family, not volunteering to deploy to PuertoRico. With employers having so much trouble getting workers, I can imagine trying to get people (especially millennials) to do things for free.

So trustees can pay the $117.00 a month or take the repeater somewhere else. Plain and simple. That's not bad because I was quoted $200.00 a month to site a repeater on a former broadcast tower for a volunteer rescue squad in 1994. I got it on the local city water tank for free. My late uncle and the mayor had been drinking buddies. LOL.

 

[ShawnInPaso]

Hams may want a free ride and claim "emergency communications" as the justification.
Well, all those other public safety agencies are paying to use the sites for legit emergency communications. Maybe they should all get free access also.

I've had a USFS permit for about thirty years. We already pay our way for the permit itself, an annual fee for the permit and our tax dollars which already fund the USFS for the job they do already. If one were to actually read the proposed rule, you would find that the USFS is riding on the back of the Farm Bill in a way which is in violation of the manner that new rules are to be processed. The goal of the rule making is to to collect enough fees each year to fully fund and staff the permit billing office for the USFS (clerks, computers, desks, rent, etc.) and nothing more.

Here is my reply to the proposed rule making from earlier this year. It's lengthy, but if you take the time to read the main points, most would conclude there is a lot of funny business in the rule making. And no, I haven't heard if it has passed or not. Each year permit holders get two pieces of mail, the first around Oct/Nov which requires an inventory of site comm equipment and the second in Dec/Jan which is the bill itself. If they have approved the rule making and we all get a wallop of a bill without advance notice it will just underscore how maligned the whole system is.

https://www.theradioroom.net/files/comments.pdf

 

[natedawg1604]

I've had a USFS permit for about thirty years. We already pay our way for the permit itself, an annual fee for the permit and our tax dollars which already fund the USFS for the job they do already. If one were to actually read the proposed rule, you would find that the USFS is riding on the back of the Farm Bill in a way which is in violation of the manner that new rules are to be processed. The goal of the rule making is to to collect enough fees each year to fully fund and staff the permit billing office for the USFS (clerks, computers, desks, rent, etc.) and nothing more.

Here is my reply to the proposed rule making from earlier this year. It's lengthy, but if you take the time to read the main points, most would conclude there is a lot of funny business in the rule making. And no, I haven't heard if it has passed or not. Each year permit holders get two pieces of mail, the first around Oct/Nov which requires an inventory of site comm equipment and the second in Dec/Jan which is the bill itself. If they have approved the rule making and we all get a wallop of a bill without advance notice it will just underscore how maligned the whole system is.

https://www.theradioroom.net/files/comments.pdf

Yeah I would be curious if these proposed fees are directly attributable to staff time spent on maintaining LMR sites, other than actual USFS repeaters of course. Do they currently spend a lot of time maintaining non-USFS stuff at the LMR sites? I always assumed each repeater owner did a lot of work themselves.

I've never owned a repeater on a big mountain top site so I have no first hand experience.

 

[mmckenna]

Here is my reply to the proposed rule making from earlier this year. It's lengthy, but if you take the time to read the main points, most would conclude there is a lot of funny business in the rule making.

I did read most of it.
The concerns of the Farm Bill versus what the USFS is doing isn't what I'm discussing.

My point is related to the costs of running a radio site. I run a few for my employer and I know what the actual costs are. It's not cheap.
There's a lot of overhead in administration, and that's standard across the industry, it's not limited to government.
Then there's the cost of insurance, or making sure tenants have valid certificates of insurance.
Billing users isn't a zero cost item.
One of my biggest costs is road/access maintenance. Maintaining the roads gets costly
Power isn't free.
The cost recovery model doesn't usually allow giving services away or at discounted rates. That goes for amateurs, too. While the notion that hams are providing some valuable service to the public, it really doesn't work out that way. And hams can still provide services without needing a repeater at a USFS radio site.

Locking in a 30 year rate was wise on your part, but when the lease comes due, they are going to look closely at the costs.
Who knows how carefully they figured your original lease rate 30 years ago, it could have been based off a rate established years before.
Truth is, in 30 years, costs are going to go up. The radio site/tower requires maintenance. The access roads require maintenance. The cost of power goes up. Administration costs go up.
Maybe the $1400/year is excessive in your eyes. I can't blame you for thinking that. But for a tower/site lease, $116/month is a screaming good deal, and the USFS knows that. From the sound of things, they are already giving you a pretty good deal. None of my tenants pay anything close to a rate that low. Cell carriers pay somewhere close to $5K/month depending on the site and what they have installed.

The benefit hams claim to give to society are questionable. And I know that's a sticking point with hams. I get it.
To expect taxpayers to foot part of the bill for a hobbyist to install equipment at a government owned radio site isn't going to fly. There's a lot of issues with that.

Good on you for fighting it. The rate may be high and needs to be challenged. But a $134/year rate is excessively low when compared to market rates. Expecting taxpayers to eat that isn't going to pass the sniff test.

And I did look at the photo of your site. Since you are not using an established radio vault, it looks like you may fall into a place that doesn't fit well with their rate schedule. None the less, the costs of administering the lease is still there.

 

[ShawnInPaso]

Hey mmckenna, my apologies as my post wasn't directed at you - just some general comments based off of your comments.

Anyway, the USFS can raise rates anytime they choose, nothing is locked in and the rates go up incementally each year. Since I built and constructed my own vault and supplied my own power (solar), and do not sublet any space - the only thing the USFS wants to do is inspect the site once in a while to assure I am conforming to my permit. In my case, I only know of two such occasions in 30 years. No one has provided me any services or benefits for my installation. The taxpayers also pay nothing with respect to amateur radio related USFS permits. Rates were established years ago as detailed in my response to the proposal as linked previously. Nobody is giving me anything, it's public land and use fees were established long ago for USFS permitting.

Regardless, the discussion is always good and a benefit to all because it may reveal issues needing attention in the future, so I am grateful for your words.

So coincidentally, I just now received my 2023 USFS bill which shows no change. Unless something else happens soon, @natedog1604 and the rest of us now have an answer.

 

[ShawnInPaso]

Yeah I would be curious if these proposed fees are directly attributable to staff time spent on maintaining LMR sites, other than actual USFS repeaters of course. Do they currently spend a lot of time maintaining non-USFS stuff at the LMR sites? I always assumed each repeater owner did a lot of work themselves.

I've never owned a repeater on a big mountain top site so I have no first hand experience.

The roles of the USFS is to issue permits and then assure the permittee conforms to the requirements thereafter. They do nothing whatsoever about maintenance of comm equipment, etc.

 

[ShawnInPaso]

So the rule could still be imposed:

(Government Code section 11346.5.) Once the notice of proposed action is published in the California Regulatory Notice Register, the APA rulemaking process is officially started and the agency has one year within which to complete the rulemaking process and submit the completed rulemaking file to OAL.