DirtRider . Net MX, SX, Arena Cross, Off-Road Community
Dirt Rider . Net Text Version Home
Dirt Bike Dirt Bike Dirt Bike Dirt Bike

This is the text version of DirtRider.Net
Click Here for the Full Version


Pages: 1

NOVA attack expands

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Tod

Yesterday another bill HB1698, was introduced with the intention of diverting most of the NOVA (Nonhighway and Offroad Vehicle Activities) funds to "nonhighway road recreational facilities", in other words, rest stops, outhouses, parking lots! No trails, not for us or any other trail users either.

When you write your state senator and both representatives opposing section 359 of HB1165 and SB5401, please also express your opposition to HB1698. This is just another case of taking funds intended for motorized recreation and desparately trying to spend/waste them on anything but what they are intended for.

I sent out 44 letters yesterday before I found out about this, guess it's time to buy some more stamps and do it all over again.
Good thing I bought 500 envelopes last week :silly:

Sure hope all of your are taking time to write your letters too!
Your right to ride on public land is depending on it!


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

When are they going to vote on these?


Posted by: Tod

Quote:
Originally posted by Tahuya Rat
When are they going to vote on these?


Currently SB5401 and HB1165 are in committee and since they are the major budget bills, they'll be making a slow trip through the process.
HB1698 was not even been assigned to a committee as of midday yesterday, so I don't how fast it'll move, but most likely it'll get a committee vote much sooner than the other two. Once HB1698 is in a committee, they schedule a hearing on it (public testimony is usually permitted) and after that decide if and when to vote. The committee chairman usually has a lot of control over this process.


Posted by: Tod

UPDATE

HB1698 has been assigned to the House Fisheries, Ecology and Parks committee. It should have been assigned the the Natural Resource or Transportation committees, but three of the bills sponsors are on this committee, including committee chairman Mike Cooper.

Because of this, it is moving fast. The first hearing is scheduled for Tuesday February 11, 1:30pm, hearing room A, John L. O'Brien Building.

If your representative is on this committee, please call or email them ASAP

committee members
Mike Cooper (d) - Chairman and bill sponsor
Jean Berkey (d) - Vice Chairman
Bob Sump (r)
Bill Hinkle (r)
Jim Buck (r)
Al O'Brien (d) - bill sponsor
Kirk Pearson (r)
Dave Upthegrove (d) - bill sponsor


Posted by: bbbom

Tod,

To me, what is even more disturbing than increasing the amount of money spent on facilities, education & law instead of trails is the last section to be added to the RCW's in this bill:
==================================================

{+ (3) Beginning January 1, 2013, and updated every ten years thereafter,
the interagency committee for outdoor recreation shall contract with an
independent entity to study the source and make recommendations on the
distribution and use of funds provided to off- road vehicle and nonhighway road recreational activities under this section. [b] The study must determine the relative portion of the motor vehicle fuel tax revenues that are attributable
to vehicles operating off-road or on nonhighway roads for recreational purposes as provided in this section. The study must include the types of vehicles and location of their use, the types of recreational activities, the types of recreational facilities used, and the recreational use of forest roads relative to other, nonrecreational uses. +}
=================================================

More studies to waste our 1% that we don't even get to use for our trails.

If they want to study the matter fine BUT the money should come from the 3.6% that we are due but don't get. The 1972-73 study indicated that 4.6% of the total gas tax was generated by ATVs and other eligible vehicles by their use on trails and non-highway roads. The legislature gratiously granted us 1% instead of the 4.6%, then they divided that 1% into all kinds of non-trail and non-motorized programs.

If they want studies then I want provisions for the funding to be determined based upon the REAL percentages. If OHV's generate 2% and hikers in their SUV's generate 0.01% then that should be the split and the USER groups through the IAC should get to determine what is done with the money.


Posted by: dog2

Thanks Tod and BBBoom!
Not good news but great job on providing the facts.
I wrote and emailed all my reps again and the committee members who were not bill sponsors. Hopefully we can turn the tide on this one.


Posted by: Tod

Quote:
legislature gratiously granted us 1% instead of the 4.6%,


Actually, it's even worse. In the early nineties, the legislature froze the rate at one percent of the 1990 tax, so currently it's only 18/23rd of one percent.


I'm going to Olympia next week to stir the poo, but today it's off to Walker Valley for a little brain cleansing



Posted by: MXP1MP

so who's all taken the time to write in? I have contacted all of my local reps.


Posted by: Tod

Yesterday I went to Olympia and testified before the House Fisheries, Ecology and Parks Committee in opposition to HB1698. About a dozen people spoke and was pretty well split 50/50. Unfortunately for us, the committee chairman, Representative Mike Cooper (d) is also the prime sponor of the bill and they have two other co-sponsors on the committee.

So out of a committee of nine, you need five votes to move the bill from committee to the full house. Three democrat sponors, plus the two other democrats against four republicans. The math is pretty clear and I'm sure we'll see this move out of committee soon. Kirk Pearson (r) is on that committee and was very supportive but will be outvoted.

Additionally, I visited with six other member of the House of Representatives yesterday and all of them were interested in our concerns and appear to all be on our side. They all happened to be republicans, so it wasn't a real cross section. Merely another indicator how the world of legislative politics revolves around party line most of the time.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

I wonder if Kirby Wilbur from KVI radio would be interested at taking a stab at this one...?


Posted by: dog2

Thanks for waving the flag for us Tod.
Other than writing our representatives, which I have already done, is there something else that the average Dirtrider can be doing to help our cause?


Posted by: Tod

Hey folks,

Thanks for supporting your sport.
Here's the offical NMA word of the day.
Cut and paste, print and spread around!

Tod

*************

Dirt bike riders, ATV riders, 4WD enthusiasts, equestrians, mountain bike
riders - ALERT!!! THE MOST DAMAGING ATTACK BY THE WTA ON MOTORIZED/MULTIPLE
USE RECREATION EVER, HAS NOW REACHED THE FINAL BATTLE STAGE. IF THEY
SUCCEED, THESE FORMS OF RECREATION WILL BE TREMENDOUSLY IMPACTED,
ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATED ON YOUR (PUBLIC) LAND!

We have been fighting radical green attempts to steal our only source of
funding for off-road motorized/multiple use trails and parks for years.
Last year, they finally made a dangerous breakthrough. Using our trail
project funds, via key, inside connections in Olympia, they got a fuel use
study going.

Without going into gory detail, the results of this underfunded fuel use
study, which used questionable language and methods (no on-the-ground,
in-person surveys), are being used to justify a complete reallocation of our
only source of funds (gas tax refunds) - to every sort of recreation except
motorized/multiple use! Non-motorized use of fuel tax refund is an
oxymoron.

While the IAC is at least asking for six months to meet with the existing
NOVA committee, and will be adding whole raft of new members as indicated by
the study, to come up with a new reallocation - the WTA can't wait and is
pushing, with the help of friendly legislators, bills which drive a
reallocation right now! They think they have got us over a barrel, that
they have won! NO WAY!

HOW BAD IS THIS? Motorized/multiple use recreation currently gets about 80%
of the gas tax refund. Under a straight cut reallocation per the fuel use
study, we would be cut to 20%!

We have a huge disparity between the demand for off-road trails and parks
and the available opportunity, it has reached a crisis level. To suffer
such a cut in our only source of funding will be a disaster. We will be
hard pressed to just keep our existing ORV areas open, never mind ever
closing the gap between demand and opportunity!

HERE'S THE PLAN - OBVIOUSLY WE NEED YOUR HELP!

We have a three pronged plan of attack:
1. Stop any and all state legislation (bills and budget proviso
language) that would forever reallocate our only source of funds.
2. Work hard within the proposed IAC process and try to protect
as much of our current funding as possible.
3. Continue to research any legal options.

We need your help to do this! This is way bigger than a Walker Valley
seasonal closure, and you all came through big time on that one. DO YOUR
PART, AND MAKE SURE YOU GET EVERYONE YOU KNOW INVOLVED!

First, we need to launch a communications blitz into Olympia. Every single
legislator must receive letters, phone calls, emails and faxes. And no form
letters! Following this are the talking points we think will have the
greatest impact on our legislator's thinking. Use them! If you need any
help finding out how to contact your legislators, go to the NMA's site,
where you can get the information just by entering your zip code.

http://www.nmaoffroad.org/landuse/landresources.htm.

Second, we have a dedicated enthusiast now serving as our lobbyist,
attending and testifying at every hearing, and meeting with Legislators. We
need everyone who can manage to do so, to show up in Olympia and stand by
our man. Even one more person at a hearing can make a difference! If you
think you can put some time in here, contact us and we'll connect you up so
that you can know the schedule and can line up a session.

Third, the NMA needs money, to help maintain our presence in Olympia, and
cover legal costs. Please, as an individual, or as a club, or a business,
make a donation to the NMA Land Use/Legislative/Legal fund! Take a moment
to think about how much money you spend every year pursuing your off road
recreational interest, then send even just 1% of that amount to the NMA! Do
it Now! Next month may be too late! Send your donation to; NMA Treasurer,
6702 Penny Lane, Lynnwood, WA, 98036.

Here are the talking points for your communication with your legislator:

PLEASE HELP AVERT A DISASTER IN WASHINGTON!

We believe that a grave mistake is about to be made.

Demand continues to grow far faster than opportunities for off-road
motorized (and therefore multiple use) trail and park recreation; indeed,
the disparity is reaching crisis proportions.

An underfunded fuel use study with questionable language and methods, and
results which do not correlate with past and recent studies (including
federal), is being offered by those who oppose shared multiple-use
recreation as a reason to radically reallocate the only funding source for
off-road motorized recreation in this state.

Any reduction in the funding for off-road motorized/multiple use trail and
park recreation will drive the current demand-opportunity crisis towards a
full blown disaster. Failure to provide managed, appropriate opportunities
will result in the demand naturally seeking other outlets.

Already, bootleg trail systems and backyard tracks are exploding across the
landscape. When the sole sanctioned ORV trail opportunity in the northwest
sound, Walker Valley, was recently manipulated into an unnecessary seasonal
closure, the outpouring of public response was overwhelming. The demand is
bursting at the seams! Forcing this exploding demand to seek its own
unmanaged opportunities is NOT what we want for our state lands!

Further, a frustrated marketplace will soon severely impact the ORV
businesses. New unit sales and service, and an extensive aftermarket
cottage industry, will suffer and contract, hurting employment and tax
revenues. Northwest Puget Sound businesses saw their traffic almost
immediately dry up until the Walker Valley reopening.

All of the possible recipients of any proposed reallocation of this funding
have ample primary sources of funding for their single purpose non-shared
use. Remember, Nonhighway and Offroad Vehicle Activities (NOVA) funding
for off-road motorized/multiple use trails and parks was created in the
early 70's when those very recreationists came to the state government and
offered to rescind their right to a personal gas tax refund and to add a new
ORV registration fee, in return for the creation, management, and
maintenance of such opportunities.

Washington needs to focus on ensuring that the current meager funding for
off-road motorized trail and park recreation is more effectively spent,
indeed, we need to actively pursue options to increase the funds! Please,
deeply consider the terribly negative outcomes of any decision to reduce the
funding for, and therefore off-road motorized recreation opportunities!

LOOKING BACK . . .

In the early 70's, emerging demand for multiple use/motorized off-road
opportunities led to the realization that there was no source of funding to
create, manage and maintain such in Washington. Such recreationists
created, with the Legislature, the only Washington state program focused on
satisfying that demand.

As a result, under RCW 46.09.170, 1% of the state's gas tax, and dirt
bike/ATV registration fees were provided to the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and the Inter Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC),
to provide properly managed opportunities.

The growth in demand has rarely faltered over the decades, indeed, it has
been exploding . Sadly, after an encouraging beginning, growth in
opportunities has been absent. No, we have instead regularly lost whole
riding areas, and many trail miles from the areas still open. The disparity
is worse now than it was when off-road motorized recreation enthusiasts
first turned to government to create a solution!

It has not been easy, trying to get value for the small amount of money
supposedly focused on meeting this demand. Anti-motorized off road
recreation organizations have increasingly blocked projects with lawsuits,
such that land management now avoids even proposing projects, and
bureaucracy has absorbed too great of a percentage.

Now, this thinly veiled attack on this family oriented form of outdoor
recreation by those who openly hate this activity, threatens to create a
land management and economic disaster in Washington. Please, don't cut the
ONLY source of funding for truly shared multiple use, which includes
properly managed ORV recreation!


Posted by: fishhead

Thanks for the heads up, Tod!

Would you be able to send me a Word doc that I could print for disttribution like you did for Walker Valley? I'll get some out to the shops this weekend if you can.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

The one on the NMA site can be pasted into a word doc, trying to do it from the drn post is a pain.
I'm going to stop by Tahuya and post it today.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Ran into one of the DNR guys at Tahuya, they're definately opposed to the legislation. Seems the cut affects them too, as that's where their money comes from (Educational Enforcement). Also, turns out there were only 50,000 fuel use study surveys sent out (out of a population of about 3.5 million), with only 7,500 responses. They'd already heard a number, 20% of the 1% instead of 60% of the 1% that we're legally entitled to but never got.
Has anyone ever seen legislation acted on 7,500 responses for anything, anywhere, ever???????????
This is no less than criminal.


Posted by: Tod

UPDATE -

HB1698 will be discussed in executive session by the House Fisheries, Ecology and Parks committee Thursday morning (27Feb) at 8 AM. Public comment is not allowed at this session, but it would not hurt to contact committee members and remind them how much this bill stinks, ESPECIALLY if it is one of YOUR representatives on the committee.

committee members
Mike Cooper (d) - Chairman and bill sponsor
Jean Berkey (d) - Vice Chairman
Bob Sump (r)
Bill Hinkle (r)
Jim Buck (r)
Al O'Brien (d) - bill sponsor
Kirk Pearson (r)
Dave Upthegrove (d) - bill sponsor


Posted by: bbbom

Thanks for your work over there Tod!

As far as a Word Doc, I can email you one that I made up with information on the 3 Bills and the Representatives. PM me or email me at lori@maxkuney.com and I will send you one.

The information is 3 pages long with a sign up sheet for anyone that may want more info (I will call or email anyone that needs more info) - name/number/time to call/email are requested. The last page is a tear off strip thing with the names of the 3 bills, Legislative Hotline # and web addresses for the Wa Legislature and NMA.

I printed out several copies, added copies of the Legislative District Maps and Rep. Contact Info for the Districts around Spokane and started handing them out to the local shops and anyone I knew that could help out.

There is so much information that it's hard to get something for people to take with them so I thought the tear off strip and sign up sheet may help motivate a few more people.

The last page of my Document refers to the Districts around here so you will need to change that or remove it if you decide to use it.

If anyone wants a copy, let me know. If you see a better way of doing it or saying what needs to be said on it let me know that too - I have no Pride of Authorship (besides, I plagiarized Dave Hiatt & the NMA!!!).


Posted by: Tod

Here's some additional ammunition to use when discussing the need to protect/increase ORV funding:

The number of offroad vehicle registrations is Washington State has increased 47 percent in the last 10 years.

The amount of trail mileage open to offraod motorcycles has decreased from about 11,000 to 2477 in the last 30 years.


Posted by: bbbom

Anybody have the number of miles of trails open to hikers, mtb'ers or horses?


Posted by: Tod

Quote:
Originally posted by bbbom
Anybody have the number of miles of trails open to hikers, mtb'ers or horses?


11,340 miles open to hiking as of 1990 according to the IAC (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation)

I'll dig up more numbers when I get time. :silly:


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Comittee member email list;

Mike Cooper (sponsor) cooper_mi@leg.wa.gov
Jean Barkey barkey_je@leg.wa.gov
Bob Sump sump_bo@leg.wa.gov
Bill Hinkle hinkle_bi@leg.wa.gov
Jim Buck buck_ji@leg.wa.gov
Al o' Brien (sponsor) obrien_al@leg.wa.gov
Kirk pearson pearson_ki@leg.wa.gov
Dave Upthegrove (sponsor) upthegro_da@leg.wa.gov

I suggest sending notes seperately, and tailored to whether they are sponsoring this pig or not.

For complete address & phone #s of all our reps,

http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/hadm/name.htm

Tod, for overall hiker mileage should our milage be added to it?


Posted by: fishhead

Great bit of info which has been incorporated into my response to the PI Sound Off


Posted by: Tod

Quote:
for overall hiker mileage should our milage be added to it?


Nope, 11,340 is the grand total for all types of trails as of 9nov1990.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

To Kirby Wilbur, KVI radio 570 AM;

Dear Kirby,
Please help stop an attack on NOVA funds by a special interest group, the Washington Trails Association. There are 3 bills, SB5401 (section 359), HB1165 (section359), and HB1698 that are attempting to divert almost all NOVA funds to non-motorized trail use. NOVA was set up about 30 years ago to use our gas tax refunds for off road vehicles towards trail mantainance, Enforcement and Education officers, etc. Even though 100% of the trails open to ORV's are also open to all non-motorized users as well - and are a small fraction of the trail systems available to non-ORVs, the WTA's paid lobbyists are pushing through these bills that would eventually result in the elimination of ALL ORV recreation opportunities in this state.
Please read this message from the Northwest Motorcycle Association:
http://www.nmaoffroad.org/news/news151.htm

and read the sections of the bills in question.

WE NEED YOUR HELP

These bills are a sneak attack on the ORV community. They conducted an incredibly flawed and biased "fuel use survey" last year which compared hiker's freeway miles to ORV's trail miles in determining who contributes more refundable off highway fuel tax. This survey was sent out to just over 40,000 WA residents and had approx. 7200 hundred respondants, yet are the basis for 3 BILLS!!

THE WORST PART IS, ALMOST NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT.

That's the way they want it. The only mention I have seen in the daily comic strips, was a wildly distorted and biased view in the Seattle PI's "sound off" column, which, of course had the PI's desired effect - completely misinformed responses.

Please help with our efforts to make the public aware of this travesty. If you are willing, I can get you much more information, however, either Tory Briggs or Tod Petersen of the NMA could explain the situation far better than I.

mailto:kirbyw@fisherradio.com


Posted by: bbbom

:thumb:


Posted by: Hondaxrguy

What about sending something to Ken Schram at Komo4? TONS of people watch him. It'd be great publicity if he sees it the way we do. I know Keith Eldridge from Komo so I could talk to him about how we could possibly get some coverage from them.....

Jeremy


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Go for it, Jeremy!
I thought of Kirby because he discusses alot of legislative issues on his show, no reply yet.

TV would be the funk IMO

:~))


Posted by: Tod

UPDATE

HB1698 was discussed in committee excutive session Thursday and did not instantly get passed on to the full house of representatives. This is very good news, your efforts are working. If I understand the legislative calender correctly the bill must be moved to the full house by 5March or it dies in committee.

Time to send the committee members one last happy-gram


Posted by: Hondaxrguy

Ok, I talked to Keith Eldridge tonight. We talked about it for a few minutes, and I explained what was going on as best I could. He gave me his E-Mail to get more info from someone more knowledgeable. He said the deadline for house bills to pass is Tuesday, so there's not much time, but he still seems interested. Even if it's too late for a story to come out before tuesday, it may be something that can be covered afterwards if, heaven forbid, one or more of the bills do move on. So, Tod, Tahuya Rat, Fishhead..... Maybe one of you can get him more info? I told him about the NMA and I think he wants to hear from them. Tod, aren't you high up in the NMA ranks? If whoever does sent him a letter would include NMA contact info I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Oh and tell him I sent you so he'll know exactly what you're talking about.

His E-Mail Keithe@komotv.com

Jeremy McGinnis


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Way to go Jeremy! Tod would be the best at putting the facts together IMO, but I'll also send him a note when I get home.
No reply from Kirby yet, and am hoping my letter to Bob Oke doesn't backfire, just read that he's sponsoring a bill that'll charge an 8% excise tax on motorhomes, trailers & campers to pay for state parks in lieu of the 5 bucks they recently started collecting. Excise tax gets paid every year. 8%, oh my. It'll be like paying sales tax every year. I remember when they charged a 10% "luxury" tax on boats, put about half the manufacturers out of business and bankrupted untold thousands of businesses dependent on the industry.


Posted by: fishhead

not like we'd ever see the 8%


Posted by: bbbom

According to Rep Don Cox's office the original bill is dead but it's substitute did pass committee and is currently on the House Floor.

So it is still very alive with some minimal changes which I haven't had time to digest yet. Here it is:

HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1698





As Reported by House Committee On:
Fisheries, Ecology & Parks

Title: An act relating to outdoor recreation programs.

Brief Description: Concerning the distribution and use of funds provided to off-road vehicle and nonhighway road recreational activities.

Sponsors: Representatives Cooper, Anderson, Wood, Jarrett, O'Brien, Murray, Upthegrove, Pflug and Dunshee.

Brief History:
Committee Activity:
Fisheries, Ecology & Parks: 2/11/03, 2/27/03 [DPS].


Brief Summary of Substitute Bill

· Adjusts the distribution requirements for the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation's (IAC) Nonhighway and Off-road Vehicle Account (NOVA) grant program.

· Increases the NOVA distribution to State Parks from 2 percent to 4 percent and decreases the distribution to the IAC grant program by the same amount.

· Requires the fuel use study to be updated every four years and requires membership on the NOVA advisory committee to be proportional to recreational interests identified in the study.



HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, ECOLOGY & PARKS

Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Cooper, Chair; Berkey, Vice Chair; Hinkle, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Buck, Hatfield, O'Brien and Upthegrove.

Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 2 members: Representatives Sump, Ranking Minority Member; and Pearson.

Staff: Jeff Olsen (786-7157).

Background:

The motor vehicle fuel tax supports the state transportation system including the construction and maintenance of state roads and highways. However, fuel tax paid on gasoline consumed for recreational purposes on nonhighway roads is used to support nonhighway and off-road vehicle recreational facilities. Examples of nonhighway purposes include driving a vehicle on a forest road or operating an all terrain vehicle on a trail. The treasurer deposits 1 percent of the fuel tax revenue, based on a fuel tax rate of 18 cents per gallon, into the Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle Account (NOVA). Funds from the NOVA account are distributed by statutory formula including:

· 40 percent is deposited into the(ORV) account for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to maintain and manage ORV and nonhighway road recreational facilities on DNR land;

· 3.5 percent is deposited in the ORV account and administered by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for acquisition, planning, development, maintenance and management of nonhighway roads and recreation facilities;

· 2 percent is deposited in the ORV account and administered by the State Parks and Recreation Commission for the maintenance and management of ORV facilities; and

· 54.5 percent is deposited into the (NOVA) account, administered by the Interagency for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for the planning, maintenance and management of ORV and nonhighway road recreational facilities, as well as ORV education and law enforcement programs.

Funds distributed to the IAC for the NOVA grant program are subject to the following spending restrictions:

· up to 20 percent for ORV education, information, and law enforcement;
· up to 60 percent for ORV recreation facilities; and
· up to 20 percent for nonhighway road recreation facilities.

The 2001 Capital Budget (Section 346 (3), Chapter 8, Laws of 2001, Second Special Session) appropriated $175,000 to the IAC to contract with an independent entity to study the source and use of funds provided to off-road vehicle and nonhighway road recreational activities. The fuel use survey determined 25.7 million gallons of motor vehicle fuel is estimated to have been consumed on nonhighway roads in the following categories:

· 20 percent motorized recreation activities (riding motorbikes, ATVs, snowmobiles);

· 31 percent nonmotorized related activities (hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding); and

· 49 percent "other" (camping, sightseeing, hunting, fishing).



Summary of Substitute Bill:

New Definition
Nonhighway road recreation facility is defined as trails and facilities that are accessed by nonhighway roads and intended solely for nonmotorized recreational uses.

New Distribution Requirements
The DNR's minimum distribution from the ORV account for ORV facilities is increased from not less than 10 percent to not less than 30 percent. The State Parks and Recreation Commission's ORV distribution is increased from 2 percent to 4 percent and the allowed uses of the funds are expanded to include nonhighway road recreation projects.

The NOVA allocation for the IAC's grant program is decreased from 54.5 percent to 52.5 percent. The expenditure requirements for the grant program are adjusted including:

1) 50 percent must be spent for multiuse facilities consistent with the results of the fuel use study including state and federal nonhighway road recreation projects or nonhighway and ORV education and information;

2) Not more than 60 percent of funds not expended in category 1 for ORV recreation facilities; and

3) Not more than 60 percent of funds not expended in category 1 for nonhighway road recreation.

Study Update
Beginning in 2007, the IAC shall update the fuel use study every four years. The IAC is directed to contract with an independent entity to study the source and make recommendations on the distribution and use of funds provided to off-road vehicle and nonhighway road recreation facilities. The study must determine the relative portion of the motor vehicle fuel tax revenues that are attributable to vehicles operating off-road or on nonhighway roads for recreational purposes.

NOVA Advisory Committee
The NOVA advisory committee members must be from of a proportional representation of persons with recreational experience in areas identified in the most recent fuel use study.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:

The DNR's minimum distribution from the ORV account for ORV facilities is increased in the proposed substitute from not less than 10 percent to not less than 30 percent. The proposed substitute increases the ORV distribution to State Parks by 2 percent and decreases the IAC grant program by the same amount. The proposed substitute removes the exclusion prohibiting trails and nonmotorized trails projects from qualifying for the mulituse facility category. The fuel use study update is every four years in the proposed substitute compared to 10 years in the original bill.



Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Available.

Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For: The changes being proposed are consistent with the results of the fuel use study and are supported by other studies conducted by the IAC and the United States Forest Service. All stakeholders were invited to participate in the fuel use study and comment on the study methodology.

There has been a significant increase in demand for "muscle powered" activity. The needs for trail maintenance and facilities are great. The way the fuel tax refund should operate is the benefits should go to those who fund the program. Mountain bike users support both motorized and nonmotorized trails.

There are current inequities in the NOVA grant distribution. Recent NOVA grant funding awarded approximately 80 percent of the funding for ORV facilities and only 20 percent for nonhighway recreation. The recent study shows exactly the opposite distribution should occur.

Testimony Against: The IAC and stakeholders should carefully review the results of the fuel use study and consider changes to the entire program. The stakeholder process should be allowed to occur and potential consensus changes could be brought to the Legislature next year.

The fuel use study is not consistent with sales data for ATVs, snowmobiles, and motorcycles. There have been significant increases in motorized uses and the study did not accurately capture that activity. The survey was flawed and too many surveys went to urban areas. The results of the study are not consistent with federal studies.

The trail needs for motorized uses are greater than for other uses because they can cover more miles. Motorized trails are heavily used by nonmotorized users, especially mountain bikes.

The bill will not help state agencies who need funding for maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities. The entire NOVA program should be evaluated. Changes being proposed will just lead to more conflicts among user groups. Tribes should be included in the process.

Testified: (In support) Representative Cooper, prime sponsor; Johnathan Guzzo and Chris Bell, Washington Trails Association; Francis Troje, The Mountaineers; Brian Jones, Backcountry Bicycle Trails Club; and Ken Konigsmark, Hiker representative, NOVA Advisory Committee.

(Opposed) Representative Cary Condatta; Dave Bowers, Puget Sound Enduro Riders; Tod Petersen, Northwest Motorcycle Association; Jim King, Citizens for Parks and Recreation; and Diane Nelson.


Posted by: Hondaxrguy




Posted by: dog2

Thanks for keeping us posted on the latest events.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

bbbom, could you post a link for that?

also, when you found the link for the fuel use study, did it define what "non highway" meant, and how to calculate these "non highway" highway miles? I remember being confused, so called them and they said to use ALL miles if you DON"T have an ORV, and TRAIL miles ONLY if you DO.

Bicycles using more gas, what a crock. Take Tiger Mountain for instance, you take HIGHWAY 18, turn into a NON-HIGHWAY PARKING LOT and park, total non highway usage, 75 ft. max.


Posted by: bbbom

The link to the Bill info - they just made the substitute bill info available online sometime after 5 pm yesterday because it certainly wasn't there when I checked at 5 pm. Karl had been talking to some of the reps assistants and they told him it had gone to the floor. Don Cox's office confirmed that and when I asked his assistant about the substitute bill she emailed me the info above - apparently they don't think it's too important to keep us informed. The substitute Bill passed to the floor on Feb 27th yet no info on the website is available on it until March 4th? Anyways, here's the link to the bill info

http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billin...billnumber=1698


As for the study, yes, they did explain how to determine the different classifications between Highways and Streets, Back Roads and Off-Roads. The problem is that each survey was applicable to only one vehicle. So if you are travelling to an ORV facility, you can either count your miles for the hauling unit or the ORV, depending upon which vehicle was randomly chosen to participate. Obviously that puts the ORV community at a disadvantage.

I agree, to think that a non-motorized activity can generate as much or MORE (as this study claims) gas tax than a motorized acitvity is pure stupidity. We all generate the tax on our way to the facility but once there the non-motos are done with their contributions!

I would like to see the methodology of the original study - wonder if they even looked to see how the "NEW" methods compare to those used in the beginning of the funding.

Here's the link to the Fuel Use Study - it's interesting to browse around the IAC webpage.
http://www.iac.wa.gov/downloads/NOV...eport_FINAL.pdf

An interesting note, if you look at the Eligibility Reqs in the IAC Grant Program Overview Manual (#1), it lists eligible participants for the NOVA Program as :

--- Qualified nonprofit off-road vehicle organizations (with some stipulations)
--- Municipal subdivisions
--- State Agencies
--- Tribal Governments
--- Federal Agencies

Nothing about nonprofit non-motorized organizations. Just an interesting thing I found while surfing.

You can find the whole document (pdf) here:

http://www.iac.wa.gov/downloads/Manual%201.pdf


I'm also really tired of the misdefinition of "Non-highway Recreation Facility" applying only to non-motorized recreation - what do we not travel on Non-highway roads to motorized recreation sites?


Posted by: fishhead

Remember we are not dealing with facts only perceptions of public opinion in the political process.

To change the outcome you have to change the public perception of what the facts are. Forget the kindness and playing by the rules and focus on the needs and results. This is not kindergarten, this is the moral equivlent of a war. If you will not be part of a solution you are part of the problem!

Results are what count! We lost this round because we were out spent, outmanuvered and outmanned. Lets make adjustments and go forward.

Anyone for a ride-in at Tiger Mountain? Public awareness must be increased.

Sorry to ramble on here and I appreciate the hard work everyone put forth. The consensus is that things must change but it will take a radical effort to accomplish a pardigm shift in public perception. In business you don't get unlimted opportunties to get it right. You have to be close the first time and closer the next.


Posted by: bbbom

Quote:
Originally posted by fishhead
Remember we are not dealing with facts only perceptions of public opinion in the political process.

To change the outcome you have to change the public perception of what the facts are.


Interesting thought but how would you suggest doing this? Don't get me wrong, I agree that the change is needed but how to go about such a thing eludes me.


Posted by: fishhead

By overstating the facts just as our adversaries have, making things seem worse than they are, squeking louder than the other wheel.

We are novices here and we rely on the ability of the general public to determine fact from fiction and i'm sorry to say it just isn't so. Rather than rely soley on facts we have to make an emotional connection to the public.


Posted by: bbbom

I agree with what you are saying but the hardest part is drawing the public's attention to the matter and then getting them to understand what is really going on and then getting them to express their opinions.

I think several people are working on various media outlets, as the posts above indicate but my concern is finding a way to make sure that whatever coverage we do get isn't similar to the same rhetoric we saw in the Seattle PI.

Anyways, on a good note, I did get my family fired up and that generated several phone calls on the issue yesterday to our reps and those on the committee list.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the info on the substitute bill yet so they will all have to call again!

I did get a favorable reply from one of my emails to my reps today -
===============================================
Lori,

Thanks for your message. Rep. Schoesler asked me to let you know that he shares your thoughts on this issue and appreciates hearing from someone in the district.

Krista Winters
Legislative Aide to
Rep. Mark Schoesler

==============================================

Will see if the other two are of the same mind or not soon.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Correction on Bob Oke's bill, SB5775, it's .8%, not 8% as reported in the Gig Harbor Gateway that they are proposing Motorhomes and such get charged in yearly excise tax. Money's supposed to go to state parks and "outdoor recreation" , worth reading;

http://www.src.wa.gov/News2003/OkePr021803.htm

$27 million, and they're whining about the few bucks we get....


Posted by: Hondaxrguy

Tahuya Rat, Tod, either one of you E-Mail Keith? Hear anything back?

Jeremy


Posted by: bbbom

Jeremy,

Dave Hiatt, our Volunteer NMA Director - Legal/Land Use emailed him about the issue. I haven't heard whether or not he's received any reply from him yet.

If you would like to see what he sent to Keith email or PM me with an email address and I'll forward it to you. Are you on Dave's email address?


Posted by: Tod

Here's the latest from the NMA
+++++++++++++++++++++


NMA ACTION ALERT - DON'T HESITATE! SPREAD THIS MESSAGE FAR AND WIDE!



Substitute House Bill 1698, which drastically reduces the amount of funds that go to ORV/multi-use trails, has passed out of committee and will be heard (voted) on the House floor in the next week or two. You must contact your Representative and tell him/her to oppose this legislation. If you don't know who your Representative is or don't have their email or phone number, check out the NMA website shown below and get the info easily, by entering your zip code:



http://www.nmaoffroad.org/landuse/landresources.htm.



Your message should be short and to the point. Use all or some of the talking points listed below:



1. I'm an ORV user and I'm opposed to SHB 1698.



2. This is the only off-road vehicle account, established over 30 years ago for motorized/multiple use trails via a gas tax refund system. If SHB 1698 passes, it puts over 80% of this money into non-motorized trails leaving only 20% for ORV trails.



3. ORV use in Washington State and the sport has grown tremendously while trail opportunities have decreased. We need more money to maintain the only true multiuse trails we have. Hiker only trails have many sources with 50 times more money, their bill is not about needing more money, but selfishly denying ours.



4. The gas study completed last year seems flawed. The consultants need to go to the trail heads and utilize other sources besides a limited mail survey to complete the study. Sending out only 50,000 surveys, and getting 7500 responses, mostly from urban areas, is not a good sampling of our 7.5 million residents. Docking ORV users the fuel they use getting to riding areas, by forcing only one vehicle to be counted, was not fair. The survey does not compare to recent, much larger, federal studies.



5. Out of the 6 NOVA committee members, 5 are opposed to this bill. Only the Washington Trail Assoc. (WTA, a hiking only group) representative is in favor of it. He should be since the WTA wrote the original bill.



6. Forcing the expanding and underserved motorized/multiple use demand to create unmanaged opportunities is not the right answer for Washington lands.



7. This bill will lead to a severe economic impact on the many ORV related businesses in Washington.



Sign off by leaving your name and number. Be firm but polite. Foul or threatening language counts 10X against us!


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Emailing a similar version to ALL leglators today, Tod. Not leaving them my number though, they might not act if they don't think I'm one of their constituents....is that cheating? :~)

Sending them out one at a time;
http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/hadm/name.htm

Please oppose SHB1698 for the following reasons;

1) NOVA is the only off road vehicle account, established over 30 years ago specifically for motorized/multiple use trails using an off road fuel use gas tax refund system. This account pays for trail and facility maintenance, DNR education, information and enforcement officials, etc. Though the amount of trails available to off road enthusiasts is but a small fraction of the overall available to single use groups (hikers, etc.), 100% of these trails are shared with all groups. This bill would divert 80% of our available funds to single user groups such as hikers, accelerating their long term agenda of kicking everyone out of the forest but them.
2) A fuel use study was sent out last year to 50,000 residents, mostly in urban areas where there are no ORV trails available (zero ORV trails in King County, for instance) and netted a response of approximately 7500. The study was supposed to discern which groups use more fuel off road to determine if there is a disparity in the amount allocated per group. This study improperly used seperate methods which determined that ORV users (off road only motorcycles, quads) were only allowed to use the actual fuel used off road (which is the intent of NOVA funds) in calculating their fuel use, and not allowed to use the fuel used by the vehicles that delivered same ORVs to the trailheads. Hikers, bicyclists, etc, were allowed to use their total fuel usage round trip including all highway miles in direct conflict of the intent and spirit of NOVA funds. As such the study would appear fatally flawed, yet still is supported by the bill’s sponsor. Predictably, the study concluded that a car, SUV or motorhome driving down I-5 uses more fuel than a single cylinder ORV weighing in at a couple hundred pounds. Driving down I-5 does not contribute to NOVA funds and therefore should never have been used to calculate off road fuel usage!
3) Out of the 6 NOVA committee members, 5 are opposed. Only the WTA (Washington Trails Association, a hiker only group dedicated to removing all other groups) representative is in support of this bill. This is not surprising, they wrote the original bill. Note SHB1698 also seeks to eliminate representation contrary to WTA’s agenda.
4) SHB1698 promises to have a devastating impact on a family oriented recreational opportunity.
5) SBH1698 will likewise ravage the ORV businesses which generate a substantial tax base for this state.

Sincerely,


Posted by: bbbom

Capital Budget *
House Full Committee House Hearing Rm B 3/7/03 1:30 pm TVW
John L. O'Brien Building
Olympia, WA

Public Hearing: HB 1698 - Concerning the distribution and use of funds provided to off-road vehicle and nonhighway road recreational activities. (If referred to committee.)


Go get em! Wish we could be there.


Posted by: fishhead

So is this a public hearing this Saturday or what?


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

7th is friday - tomorrow

:<(


Posted by: bbbom

Yes, it is a public hearing today!

Anyone going to make it?


Posted by: fishhead

:o oops! wrong calender


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

I hope it's not your work calender! LOL

Seeing as probably no one in the state knew about this hearing except us (Thanks bbbom), I doubt there was much of a turnout...short of who the sponsor wanted to be there, that is.


Posted by: fishhead

Yep, it's the Billy Bob Contractors daytimer work calendar, show up late and leave early Gotta ride sometime ya know.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

I heard of those, used to be able to get 'em through Bob's Bait and Tackle.com


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Just got an email from one of the leg's I wrote, SHB1698 has passed budget comittee, is on it's way to rules comittee.

time to get busy


Posted by: Tod

Quote:
Originally posted by Tahuya Rat
on it's way to rules comittee.


Merely a formality. I've seen the rules committee in action. They deal the bills out like a deck of cards, the next meeting each member reports that the bills assigned to him or her comply with the rules. On to the full House of Representatives it goes.


Posted by: bbbom

Don Cox's office emailed me the 2nd Substitute Bill but I can't open it here at work. If anyone wants it email ( lori@maxkuney.com )or PM me and I'll forward it.

It's up on the Leg page for our reading pleasure. Not sure what it means but the Bill Info says that as of March 12 it is "Made eligible to be placed on second reading."

Nothing on the calendar that I can find for 1698.


Posted by: bbbom

Nothing on the calendar that I could see for Monday according to the Leg page.

I did make up a one page info flyer for the 3 bills and their status if anyone wants it, I can email it to you. Send me a PM or email at bbbom1@excite.com

The other email is my work one & I won't be back there until Tuesday morning.


Posted by: Tod

HB1698 has passed out of the House and now moves on the State Senate.

It is now time to contact your Senators!


Posted by: Tod

It's now in the hands of the Senate Parks, Fish and Wildlife committee.
Here's the guys to bug next, especially if any of them are representing your district.



Senator Bob Oke (R-26), Chair
Senator Larry Sheahan (R-9) Vice-Chair
Senator Mark Doumit (D-19), Ranking Member
Senator Luke Esser (R-48)
Senator Ken Jacobsen (D-46)
Senator Bob Morton (R-7)
Senator Harriet Spanel (D-40)
Senator Dan Swecker (R-20)


Posted by: bbbom

Parks, Fish & Wildlife
Senate Full Committee Senate Hearing Rm 2 3/25/03 1:30 pm
J. A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA

Public Hearing:

1. SHB 1136 - Implementing the recommendations of the state parks and outdoor recreation funding task force relating to the use of the outdoor recreation account.

2. SHB 1335 - Continuing the development of water trail sites in Washington state.

3. HB 1993 - Authorizing the parks and recreation commission to rent certain undeveloped land for a term of forty years.

4. 2SHB 1698 - Concerning the distribution and use of funds provided to off-road vehicle and nonhighway road recreational activities.

5. SGA 9124 - STEPHEN THARINGER, Member, Salmon Recovery Funding Board.



Possible executive session on bills heard in committee. Other business.


Posted by: bbbom

Ooops - doubled up


Posted by: Tod

Howdy Folks,

My buddy, Dave Bowers went to the hearing today and here's his brief comments:

+++++++++++++
The system is working. The Senate had a public hearing on SSHB 1698 today. Even though there were 10 folks favoring it and only 5 opposed, the committee made comments like:
1. Maybe ORV's have to be subsidized like the transit system.
2. We can't let DNR close ORV facilities because of funding when we already have the money in this ORV account.
3. Why does the WTA need this funding source when there are so many other funding sources for non-motorized.

What's next. This type of bill has to be out of committee by April 4th although I expect them to vote on it by the 3rd.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Time to send another email or two. Keep after it, if we brake-check it here, it'll be a lot less painful and expensive than in the courts later.


Posted by: bbbom

Good to hear some positive news on this one.

I'd be curious to find out who is saying such things.


Posted by: Tod

I talked to NMA lobbyist Dave Bowers today and asked about who on this committee is on our side and this is Dave's response:

Swecker for sure and most likely Morton and Doumit. Oke is hard to read as well as Sheahan and Esser.
Jacobsen is for it and I'm told Spanel follows his lead.


Posted by: Tod

The bill passed out of th Senate committee 6-2

Now it moves to the full Senate for a vote by the end of the week or sooner.


Posted by: bbbom

:flame:


Posted by: bbbom

Wait a minute!!! I just read the Committee's amendment to the bill which is what actually passed and it isn't so bad if I understand it correctly.

The way I read it, they basically did away with the original bill and replaced it with simply forming an advisory committee to review the existing formula & policies and make a recommendation on it by January 1, 2004.

Anyone see it differently than that?

Here's the Passing Amendment to SSHB1698:

1698-S2 AMS PFW S2695.2
2SHB 1698 - S COMM AMD
By Committee on Parks, Fish & Wildlife

1 Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the
2 following:
3 "Sec. 1. RCW 46.09.280 and 1986 c 206 s 13 are each amended to
4 read as follows:
5 (1) The interagency committee for outdoor recreation shall
6 establish ((a committee of nonhighway road recreationists, including
7 representatives of organized ORV groups,)) the nonhighway and off-road
8 vehicle advisory committee to provide advice regarding the
9 administration of this chapter. The nonhighway and off-road vehicle
10 advisory committee consists of a proportional representation of persons
11 with recreational experience in areas identified in the most recent
12 fuel use study, including people with off-road vehicle, hiking,
13 hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing experience. Only
14 representatives of organized ORV groups may be voting members of the
15 committee with respect to expenditure of funds received under RCW
16 46.09.110.
17 (2) By January 1, 2004, the nonhighway and off-road vehicle
18 advisory committee must review the existing nonhighway and off-road
19 vehicle distribution formulas and policies in RCW 46.09.170 and develop
20 recommendations for statutory changes. The recommendations should be
21 consistent with the results of the most recent fuel use study, and
22 address the operation and maintenance needs of existing facilities.
23 For the review in this subsection, the committee must include
24 representatives of county sheriffs, recreational land managers, the
25 state parks and recreation commission, the department of fish and
26 wildlife, and the department of natural resources, and the chairs of
27 the house of representatives and senate committees with jurisdiction
28 over this issue."
1
2SHB 1698 - S COMM AMD
By Committee on Parks, Fish & Wildlife
1 On page 1, line 1 of the title, after "programs;" strike the
2 remainder of the title and insert "and amending RCW 46.09.280."
EFFECT: The nonhighway and off-road vehicle advisory committee is
created. The committee must make recommendations to the Legislature by
January 1, 2004, on future distribution of off-road vehicle and
nonhighway funds.
--- END ---


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Quote:
Originally posted by bbbom
The nonhighway and off-road vehicle
10 advisory committee consists of a proportional representation of persons
11 with recreational experience in areas identified in the most recent
12 fuel use study, including people with off-road vehicle, hiking,
13 hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing experience. Only
14 representatives of organized ORV groups may be voting members of the
15 committee with respect to expenditure of funds received under RCW
16 46.09.110.

EFFECT: The nonhighway and off-road vehicle advisory committee is
created. The committee must make recommendations to the Legislature by
January 1, 2004, on future distribution of off-road vehicle and
nonhighway funds.
--- END ---


If I read this right, even though non motorized users are on the committee, only ORV reps can vote, however, their votes must be in line proportional to the last fuel use survey which almost completely excluded ORVs. This oughta be interesting

On the bright side, nothing's changing until 1/1/04


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Lest I forget, a huge THANK YOU to the NMA, particularly TOD, for looking out for us, and to diligent wordsmiths like BBBOM whose efforts have apparently made a difference :thumb:

Still looks like there's lots to be done before the end of the year to straighten this mess out, but all is not lost, and we all still need to donate some sweat & time on trail work parties.


Posted by: Tod

Quote:
Only representatives of organized ORV groups may be voting members of the committee with respect to expenditure of funds received under RCW 46.09.110.


The 110 part is just your ORV tab money.
The fuel tax funds are still up for grabs.


Posted by: Tahuya Rat

Hmmm, that don't sound so good

Got a letter from Bob Oke today, will re type it in the AM, could use some help on the RCW stuff in my reply.

thanks


Posted by: bbbom

Thanks for the clarification Tod, I didn't catch that part either.

T-Rat, I'll be around on the net today so if you get it close & need help post, pm or email me. Probably won't be online much after 5 pm today until Thursday due to kid's spring break which I decided to join in.


Posted by: Tod

Washington State Senate passed HB1698 Friday, it now awaits the Governor's signature. :whiner:


The NMA will continue to fight this and all other attacks against ORV funding. The plan has been formulated and will be annouced in a couple of days.




This is the text version of DirtRider.Net
Click Here for the Full Version

Text Version Home





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser