I've read through this thing once and have a list of questions I've shot off to Sacramento for clarification. In the meantime, here are some of my thoughts on this so far.
But let me first say that it's not a terribly long document and the more people we have reading it and discussing it, the better chance we have to avoid missing something in the fine print... so please, get reading and let's talk about it.
One other thing I'd like to add is, I've been reading a lot of "geez, this is so much better than it could have been, what a relief" usually followed by some kind of nod to support it.
I really object to this train of thought and believe it was completely engineered.
Please keep in mind that no matter how this thing started it, as it is right this minute is what we should be focusing on. I do not think for one minute that the first version was realistic at all. Just as "our side" would do, I absolutely believe that the "other side" added quite a few demands that they knew would throw us all into a tailspin. That way, when they back off those completely ridiculous (and in some cases completely unenforceable) demands, we feel gratitude and relief when we're left with only slightly ridiculous demands.
That's called manipulation and it's a strong move in a chess game like this. But it's not an accurate or objective way to see this legislation clearly and I would really like to ask people to review this legislation as it stands today, in whole, and to do their best not to feel grateful for any perceived crumbs we may be getting.
Now... as for any call to "make the best of this," we're not at that point yet. This is not law and has not even completed the legislative process.
If and when it does, there are still ways to keep this from becoming law if that's what the public desires.
What I'm trying to say is, speak your mind and don't let whispers of the sky falling because we're discussing this thing in detail stop you from voicing your opinions on this.
It's far too important to the future of riding in California for us to be scared into grateful, obedient silence.
VickiW
Full Version: Sb742 As Of 9/4/07
Would like to see your list of questions. Not because I'm gonna try and answer them. Just curious.
where is this bad boy vicki?
QUOTE(richard cheese @ Sep 4 2007, 01:49 PM) 
where is this bad boy vicki?
Here's the link to SB742's information page. It contains links to the status, history, notes and amendments. Basically everything from beginning to current can be found on that page.
Here's the link to the html version for easy reading. There's also a PDF
version available.
VW
[edited for formatting]
QUOTE(L&L Corvairs @ Sep 4 2007, 01:26 PM)
Would like to see your list of questions. Not because I'm gonna try and answer them. Just curious.
I'm working on putting them into words instead of blurs on my notepad...
Here's the first two...
Here are some concerns I have, in no particular order or importance:
1) Sunset date. There is no reason for yet another sunset date for this legislation. 10 years is better than nothing but considering the deal breaker was anything but permanent, 10 years is a drop in the bucket. I would like to have seen "our" side stand firm on this point and do not understand why it was not a sticking point. Is 10 years worth some of the compromises in this legislation? We'll see.
2) There is reference to vehicles operating in "an area closed to that vehicle" but there is no guidance as to specific types of closures and worse, I see no reference to 'official' closures of any kind. To me, this leaves private property incursions in this legislation, as technically those too would be areas closed to that vehicle and that sure sounds like we're once again allowing the private property owner to rely on everyone but themselves to police their own land.
More thoughts...
3) I sure don't like this part... haven't liked it from the beginning, no matter how they try to word it:
Huh? Are they saying that if you drive your hybrid on a fire road in order to get to the bird-watching party, California Off Highway Motor Vehicle funds will help pay for that gig? I've seen some explanations for this section but I'm afraid I still don't get it. If this is strictly to do with fuel tax money and not OHV registration money, will that be specifically mandated? Will any "nonmotorized recreation activities" funding only come from fuel tax money or will green-sticker money also be tapped for non-green stickered vehicles on their way to their non-motorized recreation?
4) Same section... this seems completely gratuitous to me and has no place in this legislation:
Why in the world would the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division even consider including such a thing in this legislation? Is there also a statement that reads "Continued closure of legal riding areas may have a deleterious impact on the American family?"
more coming...
[edited for spelling]
3) I sure don't like this part... haven't liked it from the beginning, no matter how they try to word it:
QUOTE
5090.02(a)(2) Off-highway recreation includes both motorized recreation and motorized off-highway access to nonmotorized recreation activities.
Huh? Are they saying that if you drive your hybrid on a fire road in order to get to the bird-watching party, California Off Highway Motor Vehicle funds will help pay for that gig? I've seen some explanations for this section but I'm afraid I still don't get it. If this is strictly to do with fuel tax money and not OHV registration money, will that be specifically mandated? Will any "nonmotorized recreation activities" funding only come from fuel tax money or will green-sticker money also be tapped for non-green stickered vehicles on their way to their non-motorized recreation?
4) Same section... this seems completely gratuitous to me and has no place in this legislation:
QUOTE
5090.02(a)(3) The indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of those vehicles may have a deleterious impact on the environment, wildlife habitats, native wildlife, and native flora.
Why in the world would the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division even consider including such a thing in this legislation? Is there also a statement that reads "Continued closure of legal riding areas may have a deleterious impact on the American family?"
more coming...
[edited for spelling]
By the way, that offensive "deleterious" statement is included in the original Public Resources Code 5090.02... but it was not separated out as dramatically. Since they took the time to change the section in the first place, in my opinion they should have also used this opportunity to change it and completely removed such an offensive statement.
VW
VW
(2) Restoration.
(A) Twenty-five percent of the funds appropriated by the
Legislature pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5090.61 shall be
expended solely for grants and cooperative agreements for projects
that provide ecological restoration or repair to habitat damaged by
either legal or illegal off-highway motor vehicle use.
(B) The division shall develop and implement, in consultation with
the Wildlife Conservation Board, a competitive grant and cooperative
agreement program which shall be administered in accordance with
this paragraph.
© Funds identified in this paragraph shall be available for
grants and cooperative agreements for projects that provide
ecological restoration or repair to habitat damaged by both legal and
illegal off-highway motor vehicle use.
(D) Eligible projects include:
(i) Removal of a road or trail or restoration of an area
associated with the rerouting and subsequent closure of a designated
road or trail.
(ii) Removal of roads or trails and the restoration of damaged
habitats in any area that is not designated for motorized vehicle
use.
(iii) The removal of closed roads or trails, or a portion of a
closed road or trail, that will help to prevent off-highway motor
vehicle access to closed areas.
(iv) Scientific and cultural studies regarding the impact of
off-highway motor vehicle recreation not otherwise required by state
or federal laws.
(v) Planning to identify appropriate restoration techniques,
strategies, and project implementation, including planning associated
with environmental review.
(vi) Restoration projects that generally improve and restore the
function of natural resource systems damaged by motorized activities.
(E) Eligible applicants include local, state, and federal
entities, Native American tribes, educational institutions, and
eligible nonprofit organizations.
(F) Guidelines developed to implement this paragraph shall at a
minimum do all of the following:
(i) Give additional consideration to applications for projects
that will restore areas that have the potential for the most
significant environmental damage.
(ii) Guarantee that no grant will be used for the development or
maintenance of trails for motorized use.
(G) Any unencumbered funds under this paragraph shall be used only
in future grant cycles for purposes consistent with this paragraph.
Below is an example of a restoration grant that was tossed in 05/06, reason I understand was at the time NON profits could not apply for restoration grants. Spitler I understand was livid over this and threatened to crash the program, even tired to force Division to change the regs to allow this, CAL four wheel comments on Spitlers antics at the Dec 2005 meetings. I also commented kind of groups closed trails they perhaps didn't have the proper NEPA documentation to close, others cross the same line in the other direction and just open them back up again. Good news's NON profits can now apply for trail maintenance grants, which is much less of a NEPA concern than restoration work, now I see NEPA wars in our future as both sides look over each others shoulders over NEPA documentation. All in All having NON profits applying for these major restoration grants is a bad idea, any saving grace is the caps but thats per agency, how many NON profit org's do you think the enviros have they can use?...TJ
OR-736 Smith River Alliance Restoration 06 Restoration 06 $1,727,320
(A) Twenty-five percent of the funds appropriated by the
Legislature pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5090.61 shall be
expended solely for grants and cooperative agreements for projects
that provide ecological restoration or repair to habitat damaged by
either legal or illegal off-highway motor vehicle use.
(B) The division shall develop and implement, in consultation with
the Wildlife Conservation Board, a competitive grant and cooperative
agreement program which shall be administered in accordance with
this paragraph.
© Funds identified in this paragraph shall be available for
grants and cooperative agreements for projects that provide
ecological restoration or repair to habitat damaged by both legal and
illegal off-highway motor vehicle use.
(D) Eligible projects include:
(i) Removal of a road or trail or restoration of an area
associated with the rerouting and subsequent closure of a designated
road or trail.
(ii) Removal of roads or trails and the restoration of damaged
habitats in any area that is not designated for motorized vehicle
use.
(iii) The removal of closed roads or trails, or a portion of a
closed road or trail, that will help to prevent off-highway motor
vehicle access to closed areas.
(iv) Scientific and cultural studies regarding the impact of
off-highway motor vehicle recreation not otherwise required by state
or federal laws.
(v) Planning to identify appropriate restoration techniques,
strategies, and project implementation, including planning associated
with environmental review.
(vi) Restoration projects that generally improve and restore the
function of natural resource systems damaged by motorized activities.
(E) Eligible applicants include local, state, and federal
entities, Native American tribes, educational institutions, and
eligible nonprofit organizations.
(F) Guidelines developed to implement this paragraph shall at a
minimum do all of the following:
(i) Give additional consideration to applications for projects
that will restore areas that have the potential for the most
significant environmental damage.
(ii) Guarantee that no grant will be used for the development or
maintenance of trails for motorized use.
(G) Any unencumbered funds under this paragraph shall be used only
in future grant cycles for purposes consistent with this paragraph.
Below is an example of a restoration grant that was tossed in 05/06, reason I understand was at the time NON profits could not apply for restoration grants. Spitler I understand was livid over this and threatened to crash the program, even tired to force Division to change the regs to allow this, CAL four wheel comments on Spitlers antics at the Dec 2005 meetings. I also commented kind of groups closed trails they perhaps didn't have the proper NEPA documentation to close, others cross the same line in the other direction and just open them back up again. Good news's NON profits can now apply for trail maintenance grants, which is much less of a NEPA concern than restoration work, now I see NEPA wars in our future as both sides look over each others shoulders over NEPA documentation. All in All having NON profits applying for these major restoration grants is a bad idea, any saving grace is the caps but thats per agency, how many NON profit org's do you think the enviros have they can use?...TJ
OR-736 Smith River Alliance Restoration 06 Restoration 06 $1,727,320
More thoughts...
5) Public Resources Code 5090.24 deals with the duties of the commission. With this new legislation, they will:
So let's say someone finds a dandy place for a new legal riding area and applies for funding... the commission, already anti-access motivated, will review those plans according to this legislation.
What if they sit on the plans? What if they don't approve? What are the consequences of allowing this kind of control in the hands of the commission, now or in the future?
Now... the former version of 5090.24 read:
Yeah, I see the difference. But I also see "new and expanded local and regional vehicle recreation areas" still being held up by giving review power to the commission, who will either delay the process because there is no provision to keep them from doing so, or will file a lawsuit if the new and expanded areas forge ahead in spite of incomplete reviews.
6) 5090.61(b)(1) now includes "restoration...
Why was this added? There is only 5% allocated to education with this legislation and a full 25% allocated for restoration already. Can someone explain how allowing additional revenues to be available for restoration is a good thing? Maybe I'm missing something. To me, it looks like the anti-access negotiators said sure, they'd agree to 25% (down from 30%) for restoration... and why not since they'll still have access to that money down the road (and watch for it coming up later in the legislation from a different angle too).
more to come...
5) Public Resources Code 5090.24 deals with the duties of the commission. With this new legislation, they will:
QUOTE
5090.24(f) Review all plans for new and expanded local and regional vehicle recreation areas that have applied for grant funds.
So let's say someone finds a dandy place for a new legal riding area and applies for funding... the commission, already anti-access motivated, will review those plans according to this legislation.
What if they sit on the plans? What if they don't approve? What are the consequences of allowing this kind of control in the hands of the commission, now or in the future?
Now... the former version of 5090.24 read:
QUOTE
5090.24 (e) Review and approve all minor and major capital outlay expenditures proposed for the system.
Yeah, I see the difference. But I also see "new and expanded local and regional vehicle recreation areas" still being held up by giving review power to the commission, who will either delay the process because there is no provision to keep them from doing so, or will file a lawsuit if the new and expanded areas forge ahead in spite of incomplete reviews.
6) 5090.61(b)(1) now includes "restoration...
QUOTE
The remainder of the annual revenues to the fund shall be available for the support of the division in implementing the off-highway motor vehicle recreation program and for the
planning, acquisition, development,restoration, construction, maintenance, administration, operation, restoration, and conservation of lands in the system.[bold added for emphasis]
planning, acquisition, development,
Why was this added? There is only 5% allocated to education with this legislation and a full 25% allocated for restoration already. Can someone explain how allowing additional revenues to be available for restoration is a good thing? Maybe I'm missing something. To me, it looks like the anti-access negotiators said sure, they'd agree to 25% (down from 30%) for restoration... and why not since they'll still have access to that money down the road (and watch for it coming up later in the legislation from a different angle too).
more to come...
More thoughts...
7) Back on that whole vague "area closed to that vehicle" thing...
Egad. This really does include private property. And every other non-publicized and unsigned closure you can think of.
So... you're going along through the desert and there are no markings of any sort. Nothing to tell you up from down, open from closed, private from public.
With this provision, if you accidentally encroach on private property or some forgotten temporary closure or any type of closure at all, you are now guilty of an infraction (first offense) and if you have the bad luck of unwittingly going into another vaguely closed area within 7 years you incur greater wrath.
continued...
7) Back on that whole vague "area closed to that vehicle" thing...
QUOTE
38301(b) A person who violates subdivision (a) operates a motor vehicle in an area closed to that vehicle is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished as follows:
Egad. This really does include private property. And every other non-publicized and unsigned closure you can think of.
So... you're going along through the desert and there are no markings of any sort. Nothing to tell you up from down, open from closed, private from public.
With this provision, if you accidentally encroach on private property or some forgotten temporary closure or any type of closure at all, you are now guilty of an infraction (first offense) and if you have the bad luck of unwittingly going into another vaguely closed area within 7 years you incur greater wrath.
continued...
More thoughts...
8) One of the biggest problems I see with this legislation is that it will allow California OHV registration and California fuel tax money to be spent on a federally-mandated route designation process. This process is convoluted and so far I sure haven't seen where it promotes OHV use and yet, the people at that negotiating table agreed to support a federal program with California money. The OHV community strongly and publicly objected to 'our' money going to federally-mandated species monitoring but somehow this is acceptable. The money is substantial and would have been better spent on education, in my opinion.
That's a big damn piece of our pie being sliced out for a federal program.
VickiW
8) One of the biggest problems I see with this legislation is that it will allow California OHV registration and California fuel tax money to be spent on a federally-mandated route designation process. This process is convoluted and so far I sure haven't seen where it promotes OHV use and yet, the people at that negotiating table agreed to support a federal program with California money. The OHV community strongly and publicly objected to 'our' money going to federally-mandated species monitoring but somehow this is acceptable. The money is substantial and would have been better spent on education, in my opinion.
QUOTE
8352.8(b) Funds in the Conservation and Enforcement Services Account shall be allocated to the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation for expenditure when appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes of Section 5090.64 of the Public Resources Code. expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the following purposes:
(1) Up to the 40 percent of the funds, for cooperative agreements or challenge cost-sharing agreements with the United States Forest Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management, to complete necessary route designation planning work and to implement route planning decisions.
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.
(1) Up to the 40 percent of the funds, for cooperative agreements or challenge cost-sharing agreements with the United States Forest Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management, to complete necessary route designation planning work and to implement route planning decisions.
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.
That's a big damn piece of our pie being sliced out for a federal program.
VickiW
Some somewhat random thoughts (still going through the notes I took as I was reading)...
9) 25% dedicated to restoration (with other resources also available) but only 5% going to education creates a vicious cycle. We need to educate the OHV public in safety and conservation and responsible riding. Without a strong education campaign we will never catch up. This is completely lopsided to me... education will help curb the need for restoration but there's not enough money for a strong education drive which means more restoration will be needed but wouldn't be if we had the money to educate.
This is clearly no accident. 5% is a pitiful bone.
10) Now anti-access volunteers can get funding for their closure projects.
continued...
9) 25% dedicated to restoration (with other resources also available) but only 5% going to education creates a vicious cycle. We need to educate the OHV public in safety and conservation and responsible riding. Without a strong education campaign we will never catch up. This is completely lopsided to me... education will help curb the need for restoration but there's not enough money for a strong education drive which means more restoration will be needed but wouldn't be if we had the money to educate.
This is clearly no accident. 5% is a pitiful bone.
10) Now anti-access volunteers can get funding for their closure projects.
continued...
This is a big one to me...
11) One of the new amendments is regarding "ground disturbing activity."
I can't find a definition for 'ground disturbing activity' which means it will be left to the twisted imaginations of the anti access community. Here's the section that brings it up.
I don't just read these things looking for spelling areas or obvious booby traps... I also read these things looking for ways that the legislation can be used against us in court... loopholes that are easily missed. This one seems like one you can drive a truck through. If someone can correct me on this, I'm begging for it.
11) One of the new amendments is regarding "ground disturbing activity."
I can't find a definition for 'ground disturbing activity' which means it will be left to the twisted imaginations of the anti access community. Here's the section that brings it up.
I don't just read these things looking for spelling areas or obvious booby traps... I also read these things looking for ways that the legislation can be used against us in court... loopholes that are easily missed. This one seems like one you can drive a truck through. If someone can correct me on this, I'm begging for it.
QUOTE
5090.53. No funds may be granted or expended pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50, unless all of the following conditions are met:
(a)The If the project involves a ground disturbing activity, the recipient has completed wildlife habitat and soil surveys and has prepared a wildlife habitat protection program to sustain a viable species composition for the project area.
(b)The If the project involves a ground disturbing activity, the recipient agrees to monitor the condition of soils and wildlife in the project area each year in order to determine whether the soil conservation standards adopted pursuant to Section 5090.35 and the wildlife habitat protection programs program prepared pursuant to
subdivision (a) are being met.
(c )The If the project involves a ground disturbing activity, the recipient agrees that, whenever the soil conservation standards adopted pursuant to Section 5090.35 are not being met in any portion of a project area, the recipient shall close temporarily that noncompliant portion, to repair and prevent accelerated erosion, until the same soil conservation standards adopted pursuant to Section 5090.35 are met.
(d)The If the project involves a ground disturbing activity, the recipient agrees that, whenever the wildlife habitat protection programs program prepared pursuant to subdivision (c ) are (a) is not being met in any portion of a project area, the recipient shall close temporarily that noncompliant portion until the same wildlife habitat protection programs program prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) are is met.
(a)
(b)
subdivision (a) are being met.
(c )
(d)
QUOTE
10) Now anti-access volunteers can get funding for their closure projects.
Also they may not even loose Volunteer Status, remember this, is a plan coming together?..TJ
QUOTE
BILL NUMBER: AB 2690 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 330
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AUGUST 30, 2004
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR AUGUST 27, 2004
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 12, 2004
PASSED THE SENATE JULY 1, 2004
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 29, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 26, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 12, 2004
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Hancock
FEBRUARY 20, 2004
An act to repeal and add Section 1720.4 of the Labor Code,
relating to public works, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take
effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2690, Hancock. Public works: funds.
Existing law defines "public works," for purposes of regulating
public works contracts, as, among other things, construction,
alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under
contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds.
Otherwise covered work that meets certain criteria, including work
that is performed entirely by volunteer labor, is excluded from this
definition of "public works." Pursuant to existing law, all workers
employed on public works shall be paid not less than the general
prevailing rate of per diem wages for work, except for public works
projects of $1,000 or less.
This bill would exempt from these provisions any work that is
performed by a volunteer, a volunteer coordinator, or by members of
the California Conservation Corps or of certified Community
Conservation Corps.
The bill would apply this exemption retroactively to otherwise
covered work concluded on or after January 1, 2002, to the extent
permitted by law. This bill would remain in effect until January 1,
2009, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute
modifies that date.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 1720.4 of the Labor Code is repealed.
SEC. 2. Section 1720.4 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
1720.4. (a) This chapter shall not apply to any of the following
work:
(1) Any work performed by a volunteer. For purposes of this
section, "volunteer" means an individual who performs work for civic,
charitable, or humanitarian reasons for a public agency or
corporation qualified under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code as a tax-exempt organization, without promise, expectation, or
receipt of any compensation for work performed.
(A) An individual shall be considered a volunteer only when his or
her services are offered freely and without pressure and coercion,
direct or implied, from an employer.
(B) An individual may receive reasonable meals, lodging,
transportation, and incidental expenses or nominal nonmonetary awards
without losing volunteer status if, in the entire context of the
situation, those benefits and payments are not a substitute form of
compensation for work performed.
© An individual shall not be considered a volunteer if the
person is otherwise employed for compensation at any time (i) in the
construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair, or
maintenance work on the same project, or (ii) by a contractor, other
than a corporation qualified under Section 501©(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code as a tax-exempt organization, that is receiving payment
to perform construction, alteration, demolition, installation,
repair, or maintenance work on the same project.
(2) Any work performed by a volunteer coordinator. For purposes
of this section, "volunteer coordinator" means an individual paid by
a corporation qualified under Section 501©(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code as a tax-exempt organization, to oversee or supervise
volunteers. An individual may be considered a volunteer coordinator
even if the individual performs some nonsupervisory work on a project
alongside the volunteers, so long as the individual's primary
responsibility on the project is to oversee or supervise the
volunteers rather than to perform nonsupervisory work.
(3) Any work performed by members of the California Conservation
Corps or of Community Conservation Corps certified by the California
Conservation Corps pursuant to Section 14507.5 of the Public
Resources Code.
(b) This section shall apply retroactively to otherwise covered
work concluded on or after January 1, 2002, to the extent permitted
by law.
© This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2009, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statue,
which is enacted before January 1, 2009, deletes or extends that
date.
SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the
meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate
effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to encourage citizen initiative and volunteer action in
state service and to eliminate all legal disincentives and
impediments to volunteering on public works projects, it is necessary
that this bill take effect immediately.
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 330
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AUGUST 30, 2004
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR AUGUST 27, 2004
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 12, 2004
PASSED THE SENATE JULY 1, 2004
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 29, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 26, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 12, 2004
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Hancock
FEBRUARY 20, 2004
An act to repeal and add Section 1720.4 of the Labor Code,
relating to public works, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take
effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2690, Hancock. Public works: funds.
Existing law defines "public works," for purposes of regulating
public works contracts, as, among other things, construction,
alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under
contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds.
Otherwise covered work that meets certain criteria, including work
that is performed entirely by volunteer labor, is excluded from this
definition of "public works." Pursuant to existing law, all workers
employed on public works shall be paid not less than the general
prevailing rate of per diem wages for work, except for public works
projects of $1,000 or less.
This bill would exempt from these provisions any work that is
performed by a volunteer, a volunteer coordinator, or by members of
the California Conservation Corps or of certified Community
Conservation Corps.
The bill would apply this exemption retroactively to otherwise
covered work concluded on or after January 1, 2002, to the extent
permitted by law. This bill would remain in effect until January 1,
2009, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute
modifies that date.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 1720.4 of the Labor Code is repealed.
SEC. 2. Section 1720.4 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
1720.4. (a) This chapter shall not apply to any of the following
work:
(1) Any work performed by a volunteer. For purposes of this
section, "volunteer" means an individual who performs work for civic,
charitable, or humanitarian reasons for a public agency or
corporation qualified under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code as a tax-exempt organization, without promise, expectation, or
receipt of any compensation for work performed.
(A) An individual shall be considered a volunteer only when his or
her services are offered freely and without pressure and coercion,
direct or implied, from an employer.
(B) An individual may receive reasonable meals, lodging,
transportation, and incidental expenses or nominal nonmonetary awards
without losing volunteer status if, in the entire context of the
situation, those benefits and payments are not a substitute form of
compensation for work performed.
© An individual shall not be considered a volunteer if the
person is otherwise employed for compensation at any time (i) in the
construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair, or
maintenance work on the same project, or (ii) by a contractor, other
than a corporation qualified under Section 501©(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code as a tax-exempt organization, that is receiving payment
to perform construction, alteration, demolition, installation,
repair, or maintenance work on the same project.
(2) Any work performed by a volunteer coordinator. For purposes
of this section, "volunteer coordinator" means an individual paid by
a corporation qualified under Section 501©(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code as a tax-exempt organization, to oversee or supervise
volunteers. An individual may be considered a volunteer coordinator
even if the individual performs some nonsupervisory work on a project
alongside the volunteers, so long as the individual's primary
responsibility on the project is to oversee or supervise the
volunteers rather than to perform nonsupervisory work.
(3) Any work performed by members of the California Conservation
Corps or of Community Conservation Corps certified by the California
Conservation Corps pursuant to Section 14507.5 of the Public
Resources Code.
(b) This section shall apply retroactively to otherwise covered
work concluded on or after January 1, 2002, to the extent permitted
by law.
© This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2009, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statue,
which is enacted before January 1, 2009, deletes or extends that
date.
SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the
meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate
effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to encourage citizen initiative and volunteer action in
state service and to eliminate all legal disincentives and
impediments to volunteering on public works projects, it is necessary
that this bill take effect immediately.
This is the end of my notes that I made in my first pass-through of this legislation. Here's another biggie for me...
12) Earlier I mentioned how restoration may "only" have 25% allocated specifically in this legislation but that there are other ways for off-highway motorized vehicle money to be granted for restoration. Here's another one I found:
In the same section that allows our money to go to the forest service's route designation program...
more of our money will be made available for restoration.
No wonder the anti-access negotiators were willing to let go of 5%...
VickiW
12) Earlier I mentioned how restoration may "only" have 25% allocated specifically in this legislation but that there are other ways for off-highway motorized vehicle money to be granted for restoration. Here's another one I found:
In the same section that allows our money to go to the forest service's route designation program...
QUOTE
8352.8(b) Funds in the Conservation and Enforcement Services Account shall be allocated to the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation for expenditure when appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes of Section 5090.64 of the Public Resources Code. expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the following purposes:
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.[bold emphasis added]
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.[bold emphasis added]
more of our money will be made available for restoration.
No wonder the anti-access negotiators were willing to let go of 5%...
VickiW
Also don't forget we got this Little gem of a potential stray bullet flying around out there...TJ
QUOTE
BILL NUMBER: AB 492 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Garcia
FEBRUARY 20, 2007
An act to amend Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code,
relating to the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 492, as introduced, Garcia. Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund:
grants.
Existing law authorizes the issuance of grants the Off-Highway
Vehicle Trust Fundto cities, counties, and appropriate districts for
the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, administration,
operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation of trails,
trailheads, areas, and other facilities for the use of off-highway
motor vehicles.
This bill would authorize the issuance of those grants from to
park units that are not classified as State Vehicular Recreation
Areas, but where off-highway recreational vehicle use is permitted.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code is amended
to read:
5090.50. (a) Grants may be made to cities, counties, and
appropriate districts if the grant applicant has approval to apply
for grant funds, in the form of a resolution from its governing body.
(b) Park units that are not classified as State Vehicular
Recreation Areas, under Article 4 (commencing with Section 5090.41),
but where off-highway recreational vehicle use is permitted, may be
eligible to receive moneys from the fund only through grants that may
be submitted for approval for any of the activities specified in
subdivision (d).
(b)
© The division may enter into cooperative agreements
with agencies of the United States and federally recognized Native
American tribes.
©
(d) Grants and cooperative agreements may be awarded
for the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance,
administration, operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation
of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities associated with
the use of off-highway motor vehicles, and programs involving
off-highway motor vehicle safety or education.
(d)
(e) Grant and cooperative agreement applications shall
be in accordance with local or federal plans and any plans for
off-highway motor vehicle recreation prepared by the division.
(e)
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision ©
(d) , funds may be used for law enforcement and repairing
damage caused by the use of off-highway motor vehicles on property
being used by off-highway motor vehicles where the operation of those
vehicles is prohibited by federal, state, or local law.
(f)
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision ©
(d) , grants may be awarded to educational institutions
and nonprofit organizations for eligible projects that are designed
to sustain a managed off-highway motor vehicle recreation program.
Eligible projects shall be limited to scientific research, natural
resource conservation activities, as defined in Section 5090.10,
cultural resource conservation activities, and programs involving
off-highway motor vehicle safety or education. If the application for
grant funds involves activities on any public lands, the applicant
shall obtain approval from the affected land management agency and
submit that approval with the application for grant funds. All
projects shall comply with the requirements of subdivisions
(g) and (h) (h) and (i) .
(g) Every
(h) An applicant for a grant
shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division
13 (commencing with Section 21000)). The division shall ensure that
all cooperative agreement applications have completed environmental
review procedures that are at least comparable to those of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
(h)
(i) All cooperative agreements shall be subject to the
uniform application of soil, wildlife, and wildlife habitat
protection standards specified in Section 5090.53.
(i)
(j) Subdivision (h) (i)
does not apply to applicants that apply solely for law enforcement
funding.
(j) No
(k) A grant may not be
made or cooperative agreement entered into under this section
without the approval of the commission.
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Garcia
FEBRUARY 20, 2007
An act to amend Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code,
relating to the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 492, as introduced, Garcia. Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund:
grants.
Existing law authorizes the issuance of grants the Off-Highway
Vehicle Trust Fundto cities, counties, and appropriate districts for
the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, administration,
operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation of trails,
trailheads, areas, and other facilities for the use of off-highway
motor vehicles.
This bill would authorize the issuance of those grants from to
park units that are not classified as State Vehicular Recreation
Areas, but where off-highway recreational vehicle use is permitted.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code is amended
to read:
5090.50. (a) Grants may be made to cities, counties, and
appropriate districts if the grant applicant has approval to apply
for grant funds, in the form of a resolution from its governing body.
(b) Park units that are not classified as State Vehicular
Recreation Areas, under Article 4 (commencing with Section 5090.41),
but where off-highway recreational vehicle use is permitted, may be
eligible to receive moneys from the fund only through grants that may
be submitted for approval for any of the activities specified in
subdivision (d).
(b)
© The division may enter into cooperative agreements
with agencies of the United States and federally recognized Native
American tribes.
©
(d) Grants and cooperative agreements may be awarded
for the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance,
administration, operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation
of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities associated with
the use of off-highway motor vehicles, and programs involving
off-highway motor vehicle safety or education.
(d)
(e) Grant and cooperative agreement applications shall
be in accordance with local or federal plans and any plans for
off-highway motor vehicle recreation prepared by the division.
(e)
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision ©
(d) , funds may be used for law enforcement and repairing
damage caused by the use of off-highway motor vehicles on property
being used by off-highway motor vehicles where the operation of those
vehicles is prohibited by federal, state, or local law.
(f)
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision ©
(d) , grants may be awarded to educational institutions
and nonprofit organizations for eligible projects that are designed
to sustain a managed off-highway motor vehicle recreation program.
Eligible projects shall be limited to scientific research, natural
resource conservation activities, as defined in Section 5090.10,
cultural resource conservation activities, and programs involving
off-highway motor vehicle safety or education. If the application for
grant funds involves activities on any public lands, the applicant
shall obtain approval from the affected land management agency and
submit that approval with the application for grant funds. All
projects shall comply with the requirements of subdivisions
(g) and (h) (h) and (i) .
(g) Every
(h) An applicant for a grant
shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division
13 (commencing with Section 21000)). The division shall ensure that
all cooperative agreement applications have completed environmental
review procedures that are at least comparable to those of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
(h)
(i) All cooperative agreements shall be subject to the
uniform application of soil, wildlife, and wildlife habitat
protection standards specified in Section 5090.53.
(i)
(j) Subdivision (h) (i)
does not apply to applicants that apply solely for law enforcement
funding.
(j) No
(k) A grant may not be
made or cooperative agreement entered into under this section
without the approval of the commission.
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 4 2007, 02:51 PM)
6) 5090.61(b)(1) now includes "restoration...
Why was this added? There is only 5% allocated to education with this legislation and a full 25% allocated for restoration already. Can someone explain how allowing additional revenues to be available for restoration is a good thing? Maybe I'm missing something. To me, it looks like the anti-access negotiators said sure, they'd agree to 25% (down from 30%) for restoration... and why not since they'll still have access to that money down the road (and watch for it coming up later in the legislation from a different angle too).
QUOTE
The remainder of the annual revenues to the fund shall be available for the support of the division in implementing the off-highway motor vehicle recreation program and for the
planning, acquisition, development,restoration, construction, maintenance, administration, operation, restoration, and conservation of lands in the system.[bold added for emphasis]
planning, acquisition, development,
Why was this added? There is only 5% allocated to education with this legislation and a full 25% allocated for restoration already. Can someone explain how allowing additional revenues to be available for restoration is a good thing? Maybe I'm missing something. To me, it looks like the anti-access negotiators said sure, they'd agree to 25% (down from 30%) for restoration... and why not since they'll still have access to that money down the road (and watch for it coming up later in the legislation from a different angle too).
In this case, it refers to THE SYSTEM which is the SVRAs. Yes, Restoration does take place within the SVRAs. In the present code, the CESA and non-CESA funding amounts apply to both the Grants and the SVRAs. Now, it looks like the SVRAs can allocate funds where they see it to be necessary.
Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistant LAO
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 4 2007, 03:51 PM)
This is the end of my notes that I made in my first pass-through of this legislation. Here's another biggie for me...
12) Earlier I mentioned how restoration may "only" have 25% allocated specifically in this legislation but that there are other ways for off-highway motorized vehicle money to be granted for restoration. Here's another one I found:
In the same section that allows our money to go to the forest service's route designation program...
more of our money will be made available for restoration.
No wonder the anti-access negotiators were willing to let go of 5%...
VickiW
12) Earlier I mentioned how restoration may "only" have 25% allocated specifically in this legislation but that there are other ways for off-highway motorized vehicle money to be granted for restoration. Here's another one I found:
In the same section that allows our money to go to the forest service's route designation program...
QUOTE
8352.8(b) Funds in the Conservation and Enforcement Services Account shall be allocated to the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation for expenditure when appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes of Section 5090.64 of the Public Resources Code. expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the following purposes:
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.[bold emphasis added]
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.[bold emphasis added]
more of our money will be made available for restoration.
No wonder the anti-access negotiators were willing to let go of 5%...
VickiW
The money they are talking about has already been allocated to Restoration. It is the money that was in the Restoration account and was not spent in previous years.
Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistaant LAO
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 4 2007, 03:17 PM)
Some somewhat random thoughts (still going through the notes I took as I was reading)...
9) 25% dedicated to restoration (with other resources also available) but only 5% going to education creates a vicious cycle. We need to educate the OHV public in safety and conservation and responsible riding. Without a strong education campaign we will never catch up. This is completely lopsided to me... education will help curb the need for restoration but there's not enough money for a strong education drive which means more restoration will be needed but wouldn't be if we had the money to educate.
This is clearly no accident. 5% is a pitiful bone.
9) 25% dedicated to restoration (with other resources also available) but only 5% going to education creates a vicious cycle. We need to educate the OHV public in safety and conservation and responsible riding. Without a strong education campaign we will never catch up. This is completely lopsided to me... education will help curb the need for restoration but there's not enough money for a strong education drive which means more restoration will be needed but wouldn't be if we had the money to educate.
This is clearly no accident. 5% is a pitiful bone.
Evan at the present Grants level of $18 million, that works out tp $900,000. In the past few years, only one agency has submitted a stand alone Education Grant request. Maybe the thinking behind this is just for stand alone projects, not bundled into another project, like LE.
Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistant LAO
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 4 2007, 03:10 PM)
More thoughts...
8) One of the biggest problems I see with this legislation is that it will allow California OHV registration and California fuel tax money to be spent on a federally-mandated route designation process. This process is convoluted and so far I sure haven't seen where it promotes OHV use and yet, the people at that negotiating table agreed to support a federal program with California money. The OHV community strongly and publicly objected to 'our' money going to federally-mandated species monitoring but somehow this is acceptable. The money is substantial and would have been better spent on education, in my opinion.
That's a big damn piece of our pie being sliced out for a federal program.
VickiW
8) One of the biggest problems I see with this legislation is that it will allow California OHV registration and California fuel tax money to be spent on a federally-mandated route designation process. This process is convoluted and so far I sure haven't seen where it promotes OHV use and yet, the people at that negotiating table agreed to support a federal program with California money. The OHV community strongly and publicly objected to 'our' money going to federally-mandated species monitoring but somehow this is acceptable. The money is substantial and would have been better spent on education, in my opinion.
QUOTE
8352.8(b) Funds in the Conservation and Enforcement Services Account shall be allocated to the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation for expenditure when appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes of Section 5090.64 of the Public Resources Code. expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the following purposes:
(1) Up to the 40 percent of the funds, for cooperative agreements or challenge cost-sharing agreements with the United States Forest Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management, to complete necessary route designation planning work and to implement route planning decisions.
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.
(1) Up to the 40 percent of the funds, for cooperative agreements or challenge cost-sharing agreements with the United States Forest Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management, to complete necessary route designation planning work and to implement route planning decisions.
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.
That's a big damn piece of our pie being sliced out for a federal program.
VickiW
I'm in total agreement that the state shouldn't be paying for a federally mandated program. The good part though, is that the money will come out of the left over monies in the CESA account. For the last 4 years, it has come out of the Planning project bucket, non-CESA, taking away money for on-the-ground projects that would benefit OHV recreation.
Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistant LAO
QUOTE(Brewster @ Sep 4 2007, 05:37 PM)
The money they are talking about has already been allocated to Restoration. It is the money that was in the Restoration account and was not spent in previous years.
I understand.
My point remains... there is still an imbalance here with "extra" money sources for restoration while OHV-related needs are still being squeezed.
I just don't want anyone believing what "we" got any kind of break here, just because "they" agreed to drop the restoration percentage from 30% to 25%. It may look good on paper, but how much did they really lose in the end would be the real question.
VickiW
Also the money can't be ever used for anything Else, all grants are fully funded as long as there are funds available, looks like all resto grants will be fully funded Brew don't that bother you? Also just how are they figuring the money in an account that don't exist, didn't the audit cover this issue and what about the unaccountable discrepancy, +900% in unregistered vehicles from the old survey and the new one???TJ 
QUOTE
I just don't want anyone believing what "we" got any kind of break here, just because "they" agreed to drop the restoration percentage from 30% to 25%.
I’m sorry, but based on this :
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 4 2007, 01:12 PM)
Please keep in mind that no matter how this thing started it, as it is right this minute is what we should be focusing on.
VickiW
VickiW
I thought we were reviewing this thing as a ‘stand alone, as is, on it’s own merits without comparing it to the past.
Not a ‘woulda, coulda, shoulda, it’s better/worse then what is/was/coulda been.
Guess I’m confused.
Forgetting what the eco’s ‘gave up’. Is 25% reasonable, balanced, and something we can live with for the next 10 years? The money in the CESA account was already ear marked for the greens and when it’s gone, it’s gone.
You're right... let's focus on the here and now. I've already found out that's not so easy to do. 
What we have is what we have. Is 25% to restoration but only 5% to education fair? Wouldn't 20% and 10% be more equitable? Maybe if there was some real funding behind the drive for education we would actually see more ATV certification classes, more pamphlets focused on safety, more commercials aimed at responsible riding.
Ignoring the past... how is 25% of off-highway motor vehicle money a fair amount to use for funding closures?
VickiW
What we have is what we have. Is 25% to restoration but only 5% to education fair? Wouldn't 20% and 10% be more equitable? Maybe if there was some real funding behind the drive for education we would actually see more ATV certification classes, more pamphlets focused on safety, more commercials aimed at responsible riding.
Ignoring the past... how is 25% of off-highway motor vehicle money a fair amount to use for funding closures?
VickiW
Remember this???????. a littel bill that tried...TJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to deal with the off balance amount of funds committed to Restoration, is to expand the use of restoration funds beyond closing trails. This wording proposed in AB 2784 would allow us to at least use the funds for proper management, and only would be used to close an area as a result of a proper management action. My read on this is much of the financial incentive is removed to structure grants just to close areas, if we can’t get around the 30% figure this would have the same effect, in other words if you can lower water rather than raise the bridge do it. For the life of me I don’t know how this 30% figure came about, from an old fuel tax survey that somehow claims a five to one ratio of unregistered to registered vehicles, via DMV figures that are a joke at best.
I’m tired beating a dead horse on this issue, so all we can do is try to do as much as we can with the 30% we must spend on restoration, AB 2784 makes great strides in that direction. If and when we get the new fuel tax survey and assuming it’s rational, this combined with AB 2784 should pretty much make the issue moot. This alone is good reason to support this Bill, as far as the Commissions status and its relation to Division I’m just as confused as everyone else, but at a glance I supported this bill. TJ (note words in italics are striked)
5090.11. "Restoration" means ,upon closure of the unit or any portion thereof, the restoration of land to the contours, the plant communities, and the plant covers comparable to those on surrounding lands or at least those that existed prior to off-highway motor vehicle use any of the following: (a) Repair of areas where conservation efforts are not adequate to meet soil conservation standards or habitat protection program standards . (b) Repair of areas damaged by unlawful off-highway vehicle recreation use. © Upon closure of the unit or any portion thereof, as a result of an agency public planning process, the restoration of land to contours, plant communities, and plant covers comparable to those on surrounding lands or at least those that existed prior to off-highway motor vehicle use .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to deal with the off balance amount of funds committed to Restoration, is to expand the use of restoration funds beyond closing trails. This wording proposed in AB 2784 would allow us to at least use the funds for proper management, and only would be used to close an area as a result of a proper management action. My read on this is much of the financial incentive is removed to structure grants just to close areas, if we can’t get around the 30% figure this would have the same effect, in other words if you can lower water rather than raise the bridge do it. For the life of me I don’t know how this 30% figure came about, from an old fuel tax survey that somehow claims a five to one ratio of unregistered to registered vehicles, via DMV figures that are a joke at best.
I’m tired beating a dead horse on this issue, so all we can do is try to do as much as we can with the 30% we must spend on restoration, AB 2784 makes great strides in that direction. If and when we get the new fuel tax survey and assuming it’s rational, this combined with AB 2784 should pretty much make the issue moot. This alone is good reason to support this Bill, as far as the Commissions status and its relation to Division I’m just as confused as everyone else, but at a glance I supported this bill. TJ (note words in italics are striked)
5090.11. "Restoration" means ,
Concerning Restoration Grants, SB742 did not change the definition of Restoration to clarify whether it meant closure with no possibility of being reopened. This was questioned in the State Audit of the OHV Program.
Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistant LAO
Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistant LAO
QUOTE
5090.11. "Restoration" means , upon closure of the unit or any portion thereof, the restoration of land to the contours, the plant communities, and the plant covers comparable to those on surrounding lands or at least those that existed prior to off-highway motor vehicle use any of the following: (a) Repair of areas where conservation efforts are not adequate to meet soil conservation standards or habitat protection program standards . (b) Repair of areas damaged by unlawful off-highway vehicle recreation use. © Upon closure of the unit or any portion thereof, as a result of an agency public planning process, the restoration of land to contours, plant communities, and plant covers comparable to those on surrounding lands or at least those that existed prior to off-highway motor vehicle use .
Point is what it would have meant if we could have only struck about two lines of text, and dose this so called unused restoration account even exsist..TJ
Okay, after several lengthy telephone conversations and a few (sometimes heated) email exchanges, I feel a little more comfortable with this legislation.
I don't feel good about it still... then again I don't know if that is even possible due to who we're dealing with on this legislation.
The optimist in me realllllllly wants to believe that this is a good piece of legislation. The cynic in me believes that we haven't even begun to uncover the loopholes we'll eventually trip over.
Can I support this legislation as it is? I haven't decided yet. I have to read it again, digest the things I've learned in the last 24 hours, and then decide.
One thing I do know right now is... nothing is certain until it's signed by the Governator. Only then will it be truly "final." Until then there is always room for tweaking... the problem is, it can still be tweaked by either side and so far, every time the anti-access gang has tried to do that, they've made it worse for us. Typical of course, but disappointing especially this late in the game.
VickiW
I don't feel good about it still... then again I don't know if that is even possible due to who we're dealing with on this legislation.
The optimist in me realllllllly wants to believe that this is a good piece of legislation. The cynic in me believes that we haven't even begun to uncover the loopholes we'll eventually trip over.
Can I support this legislation as it is? I haven't decided yet. I have to read it again, digest the things I've learned in the last 24 hours, and then decide.
One thing I do know right now is... nothing is certain until it's signed by the Governator. Only then will it be truly "final." Until then there is always room for tweaking... the problem is, it can still be tweaked by either side and so far, every time the anti-access gang has tried to do that, they've made it worse for us. Typical of course, but disappointing especially this late in the game.
VickiW
Here are some of the things I've been going over since yesterday...
The sunset of this legislation was apparently inevitable. Never mind if 10 years is better than the 5 years originally considered. It would seem that even if the anti-access and pro-access factions all voted to make it permanent, there was resistance from the legislature. Why? Mostly because of how volatile this whole legislation has been. And because of how much the program has changed from when it started. It seems no legislator was willing to support making it permanent until they could get a good look at how the New And Improved program could work out.
Of course... thinking people understand that argument was baseless. Even if the program had been made permanent and started to veer off course, just as it was created by legislation so could it be destroyed by legislation.
Oh well... the threat worked and instead of a permanent program at least we have ten years to get it right.
Any bets on whether we'll be in this same damn spot in 9.5 years?
VickiW
The sunset of this legislation was apparently inevitable. Never mind if 10 years is better than the 5 years originally considered. It would seem that even if the anti-access and pro-access factions all voted to make it permanent, there was resistance from the legislature. Why? Mostly because of how volatile this whole legislation has been. And because of how much the program has changed from when it started. It seems no legislator was willing to support making it permanent until they could get a good look at how the New And Improved program could work out.
Of course... thinking people understand that argument was baseless. Even if the program had been made permanent and started to veer off course, just as it was created by legislation so could it be destroyed by legislation.
Oh well... the threat worked and instead of a permanent program at least we have ten years to get it right.
Any bets on whether we'll be in this same damn spot in 9.5 years?
VickiW
The whole "area closed to that vehicle" thing still worries me. I absolutely believe it could be used against us and have asked that it be looked at closely for improvement.
Our adversaries are not stupid and they will use every tool possible to eliminate OHV use on public (and private) land.
Now... will citations for incursions into unmarked closed areas hold up in court?
That's not the point... the point is, it will cost the user time and money to find out. The train of thought used for leaving this little bit of junk in the legislation was that it was already in the previous law (vehicle code 38301) and didn't seem to be too much of a problem.
About the best we can hope for, if someone doesn't come to their senses prior to passing of this Bill, is some kind of "cleanup" legislation down the road that will take care of some of the problems left behind now.
VickiW
Our adversaries are not stupid and they will use every tool possible to eliminate OHV use on public (and private) land.
Now... will citations for incursions into unmarked closed areas hold up in court?
That's not the point... the point is, it will cost the user time and money to find out. The train of thought used for leaving this little bit of junk in the legislation was that it was already in the previous law (vehicle code 38301) and didn't seem to be too much of a problem.
About the best we can hope for, if someone doesn't come to their senses prior to passing of this Bill, is some kind of "cleanup" legislation down the road that will take care of some of the problems left behind now.
VickiW
I finally got some clarification on this:
The key word there is access. The way it was explained to me was, green-sticker money won't pay for the bird sanctuary or hiking trail. But because it is a dirt road (or fire lane or wash road) that must be taken to reach the bird sanctuary (or geocache treasure box), that access must be maintained and that resource (the dirt road, fire lane or wash road, etc.) must be protected.
VickiW
QUOTE
Off-highway recreation includes both motorized recreation and motorized off-highway access to nonmotorized recreation activities.
The key word there is access. The way it was explained to me was, green-sticker money won't pay for the bird sanctuary or hiking trail. But because it is a dirt road (or fire lane or wash road) that must be taken to reach the bird sanctuary (or geocache treasure box), that access must be maintained and that resource (the dirt road, fire lane or wash road, etc.) must be protected.
VickiW
I asked about the statement left in this legislation "The indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of those vehicles may have a deleterious impact on the environment, wildlife habitats, native wildlife, and native flora."
I was told that yeah, it probably doesn't belong there but it's been there for so long now that no one thought to have it removed.
The one saving grace is it notes "indiscriminate and uncontrolled use" and I responded that, well, the anti-access guys think that just starting your quad in your garage is "indiscriminate and uncontrolled" so what's your point!
Anyway, it's in there and I'm sure the anti-access fools get a private little giggle about it being on OHV legislation. Will it hurt us? No... and who knows, if there is ever a political turn in our favor maybe some cleanup legislation down the road will remove it once and for all.
VickiW
I was told that yeah, it probably doesn't belong there but it's been there for so long now that no one thought to have it removed.
The one saving grace is it notes "indiscriminate and uncontrolled use" and I responded that, well, the anti-access guys think that just starting your quad in your garage is "indiscriminate and uncontrolled" so what's your point!
Anyway, it's in there and I'm sure the anti-access fools get a private little giggle about it being on OHV legislation. Will it hurt us? No... and who knows, if there is ever a political turn in our favor maybe some cleanup legislation down the road will remove it once and for all.
VickiW
The reference to restoration in section 5090.61(b)(1) is apparently appropriate because, as was pointed out earlier, it refers to restoration within the park system and is an operational expense.
It is not in addition to any restoration grant money that may be available.
VickiW
It is not in addition to any restoration grant money that may be available.
VickiW
I'm not necessarily satisfied with the responses I received about California OHV money going to fund the federally mandated route designation process.
The best explanation I've heard so far is, the money would not be coming to "us" anyway and isn't it better that it go to route designation than some restoration project controlled by a group with an anti-access agenda?
I understand the train of thought as the legislation sits today... but is it right? That much I can't agree with.
VickiW
The best explanation I've heard so far is, the money would not be coming to "us" anyway and isn't it better that it go to route designation than some restoration project controlled by a group with an anti-access agenda?
I understand the train of thought as the legislation sits today... but is it right? That much I can't agree with.
VickiW
I have asked every source I have about the imbalance of funding between restoration and education.
The train of thought mentioned earlier, that there haven't been significant grant requests so far and so there doesn't seem to be a need for more than 5% is shared by some.
But the consensus seems to be more that education is misunderstood by both sides of the table.
The anti-access folks worry that education translates into promotion of the sport. Their concern is that the more we talk about it the more people will want to do it. I remember when people used to think that about teenage pregnancy too... if we don't talk about it, they won't get the idea to do it.
It was no more true for that than it is for off-roading. But try to teach an anti-access person the benefits of educating the off-roading public and you might as well try to teach a pig to sing.
On the other side of the table, unfortunately, is the misunderstanding that money spent for educating the public is wasted, especially when there are trails that need maintaining and operational costs that need funding. I wish everyone in our community could see the benefit of spending money on education. Just think of what a well-placed booklet could do, for instance, in a school library.
VickiW
The train of thought mentioned earlier, that there haven't been significant grant requests so far and so there doesn't seem to be a need for more than 5% is shared by some.
But the consensus seems to be more that education is misunderstood by both sides of the table.
The anti-access folks worry that education translates into promotion of the sport. Their concern is that the more we talk about it the more people will want to do it. I remember when people used to think that about teenage pregnancy too... if we don't talk about it, they won't get the idea to do it.
It was no more true for that than it is for off-roading. But try to teach an anti-access person the benefits of educating the off-roading public and you might as well try to teach a pig to sing.
On the other side of the table, unfortunately, is the misunderstanding that money spent for educating the public is wasted, especially when there are trails that need maintaining and operational costs that need funding. I wish everyone in our community could see the benefit of spending money on education. Just think of what a well-placed booklet could do, for instance, in a school library.
VickiW
I also voiced my concern about anti-access volunteers getting grant money for their projects that could easily be disguised as "closure" projects.
I was told the accountability will fall on the shoulders of the land management agency in charge of the land that will host the project.
So... we will all have to watch for those grants and then hold the land management agencies accountable for the work that is done on their watch.
An interesting point came up... one of the people I spoke to mentioned that pro-access non profit groups could also apply for "restoration" grants.
The example he gave was perhaps within a state park where illegal riding has taken place. An imaginary valley was created. Let's say there are wonderful, legal trails through this beautiful valley but off to the right the hillside has criss-crosses of illegal trails and debris left behind by those few in our community who do ride illegally.
What a proactive move it would be for some non profit group to obtain a grant to get that hillside replanted and the debris disposed of. Who better to police that land and spruce it up properly than a fellow off-roader, someone who could be trusted to only go as far as absolutely necessary versus someone who would propose to close off more land in the process.
It was sure an interesting thought.
VickiW
I was told the accountability will fall on the shoulders of the land management agency in charge of the land that will host the project.
So... we will all have to watch for those grants and then hold the land management agencies accountable for the work that is done on their watch.
An interesting point came up... one of the people I spoke to mentioned that pro-access non profit groups could also apply for "restoration" grants.
The example he gave was perhaps within a state park where illegal riding has taken place. An imaginary valley was created. Let's say there are wonderful, legal trails through this beautiful valley but off to the right the hillside has criss-crosses of illegal trails and debris left behind by those few in our community who do ride illegally.
What a proactive move it would be for some non profit group to obtain a grant to get that hillside replanted and the debris disposed of. Who better to police that land and spruce it up properly than a fellow off-roader, someone who could be trusted to only go as far as absolutely necessary versus someone who would propose to close off more land in the process.
It was sure an interesting thought.
VickiW
QUOTE
An interesting point came up... one of the people I spoke to mentioned that pro-access non profit groups could also apply for "restoration" grants.
Yes indeed, this would be one way to insure NEPA process was being followed, believe it or not I've done this and the environs don't like us treading in "their waters", personally I'd trust us with the money rather than them. If we where involved with the work and 20 miles out of hundreds was to be closed, having the inside track on the project could ether ruin a trail system or perhaps even improve it. I never had an issue with restoration grants, just the abuse and with this much money on the table we better watch the cookie jar...TJ
QUOTE(Brewster @ Sep 4 2007, 05:37 PM)
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 4 2007, 03:51 PM)
This is the end of my notes that I made in my first pass-through of this legislation. Here's another biggie for me...
12) Earlier I mentioned how restoration may "only" have 25% allocated specifically in this legislation but that there are other ways for off-highway motorized vehicle money to be granted for restoration. Here's another one I found:
In the same section that allows our money to go to the forest service's route designation program...
more of our money will be made available for restoration.
No wonder the anti-access negotiators were willing to let go of 5%...
VickiW
12) Earlier I mentioned how restoration may "only" have 25% allocated specifically in this legislation but that there are other ways for off-highway motorized vehicle money to be granted for restoration. Here's another one I found:
In the same section that allows our money to go to the forest service's route designation program...
QUOTE
8352.8(b) Funds in the Conservation and Enforcement Services Account shall be allocated to the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation for expenditure when appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes of Section 5090.64 of the Public Resources Code. expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the following purposes:
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.[bold emphasis added]
(2) Up to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) for each grant cycle, to increase the amount of funds available for restoration grants in the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.[bold emphasis added]
more of our money will be made available for restoration.
No wonder the anti-access negotiators were willing to let go of 5%...
VickiW
The money they are talking about has already been allocated to Restoration. It is the money that was in the Restoration account and was not spent in previous years.
Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistaant LAO
I WAS WRONG IN MY REPLY!!!!
A CESA account will still exist and draw funds from the fuel tax.
From SB742
" 8352.8. (a) The Conservation and Enforcement Services Account is
hereby established as an account in the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust
Fund created by Section 38225 of the Vehicle Code."
What is not clear, is how it is to be funded. In the present Revenue and Tax Code, section 8352.8, (b), it defines the funding as being from the percent of NON REGISTERED vehicles. The SB742 version of 8352.8 does not include that wording or change the paragraph notation, that is (b) to ©.
Have I over looked something?
HOW MUCH MONEY WILL BE GOING INTO THE CESA ACCOUNT?????
Ride on
Brewster
I thought the whole idea was to just not use the unregistered vehicle numbers, now of course that that figure don't fit the greens agenda any longer, are you suggesting they tripped over their own rope? Also as far as the CESA account I have still yet, to have anyone offer me any specifics or even provide ant evidence it ever really exsisted...TJ
QUOTE(TomJeeps @ Sep 6 2007, 02:44 PM)
? Also as far as the CESA account I have still yet, to have anyone offer me any specifics or even provide ant evidence it ever really exsisted...TJ
Take a look at page 10 of the state budget:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/GovernorsBudget/3000/3790.pdf
Ride on
Brewster
Notice the difference for FY 07/08 vs 05/06, funny what motivates people, this don't answer the unspent amount question it's not $14 million that's for sure...TJ
QUOTE(Brewster @ Sep 6 2007, 02:28 PM)
Have I over looked something?
HOW MUCH MONEY WILL BE GOING INTO THE CESA ACCOUNT?????
HOW MUCH MONEY WILL BE GOING INTO THE CESA ACCOUNT?????
I was wondering the same thing... have I overlooked something?
After reading your previous comment I figured I had missed something in my reading.
I'll say again... no wonder the enviros were willing to drop from 30% to 25%... they have other ways of getting restoration money from OHV funds so why not offer up a false compromise.
On the District 37 board the discussion has been pretty heated about this and really got me thinking. I love this statement:
QUOTE
TomJeeps I hear you're starting to look at the restoration money as our's to, that's the only hope we have if we don't spend it right, rest assured the enviros will spend it wrong. Forget the this is our's (O&M) and that's theirs (restoration) BS, it's all our's and our Volunteer groups will apply for the money. This is the only way to track the NEPA's, and be sure nothing gets closed we want to keep, the hell with the enviros it's our money...ALL OF IT
It's so easy to be lulled into submission by the anti-access guys. They start out making outrageous demands that send the pro-access guys into a tizzy. That way when the anti-access guys drop some of the outrageous demands the pro-access guys calm down and breath a sigh of relief. Phew, another close one.
But so often it turns out it was never close... it was a ruse... and in our rush to appear reasonable we forget what is most true about the above quoted statement. "it's our money...ALL OF IT."
VickiW
By the way, apparently this legislation was "amended in assembly" yesterday. I read the amended version quickly this morning... maybe too early because I only found a few relatively minor changes. I'll read it again and post what I find.
VickiW
VickiW
Yeah, should have waited until I was more awake.
Here's the first big change I see:
Am I reading this correctly? Will it be open season on our money? It will be paid pack (of course) but with no interest and two years down the line? And how "temporary" is "temporarily transferred?" And how much? All? 15%? Yikes.
Also in section (e) it doesn't have any condition allowing for the continuation of the program. What I mean is, the "new" sunset date is January 1, 2018, unless amended by future legislation, right? But the way this reads, that extra condition isn't included so even if the sunset date is extended, as of January 1, 2018 all remaining money will be transferred to the General Fund.
VickiW
Here's the first big change I see:
QUOTE
(d) Any money temporarily transferred by the Legislature from the
Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund to the General Fund shall be
reimbursed, without interest, by the Legislature within two fiscal
years of the transfer.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date. Any unencumbered funds remaining in the Off-Highway
Vehicle Trust Fund on January 1, 2018, shall be transferred to the
General Fund.
Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund to the General Fund shall be
reimbursed, without interest, by the Legislature within two fiscal
years of the transfer.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date. Any unencumbered funds remaining in the Off-Highway
Vehicle Trust Fund on January 1, 2018, shall be transferred to the
General Fund.
Am I reading this correctly? Will it be open season on our money? It will be paid pack (of course) but with no interest and two years down the line? And how "temporary" is "temporarily transferred?" And how much? All? 15%? Yikes.
Also in section (e) it doesn't have any condition allowing for the continuation of the program. What I mean is, the "new" sunset date is January 1, 2018, unless amended by future legislation, right? But the way this reads, that extra condition isn't included so even if the sunset date is extended, as of January 1, 2018 all remaining money will be transferred to the General Fund.
VickiW
Vicki,
Do you not believe in restoration?
The restoration money is OURS. The problem is WE off-roaders don't compete with the Enviro's to restore areas, so yeah, the money 'seems' like theirs. We need to be restoring closed areas or illegal trails so the temptation or the mistake for riders to travel/enter those trails lessens. That in return works to our favor. And open trails/areas that are falling apart due to lack of O&M money now have a chance to be addressed. Time to play catch-up.
QUOTE(AFamilyof4 @ Sep 7 2007, 09:05 AM)
Vicki,
Do you not believe in restoration?
Do you not believe in restoration?
Vicki,
Did you not read my post from yesterday?
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 5 2007, 01:34 PM)
The example he gave was perhaps within a state park where illegal riding has taken place. An imaginary valley was created. Let's say there are wonderful, legal trails through this beautiful valley but off to the right the hillside has criss-crosses of illegal trails and debris left behind by those few in our community who do ride illegally.
What a proactive move it would be for some non profit group to obtain a grant to get that hillside replanted and the debris disposed of. Who better to police that land and spruce it up properly than a fellow off-roader, someone who could be trusted to only go as far as absolutely necessary versus someone who would propose to close off more land in the process.
What a proactive move it would be for some non profit group to obtain a grant to get that hillside replanted and the debris disposed of. Who better to police that land and spruce it up properly than a fellow off-roader, someone who could be trusted to only go as far as absolutely necessary versus someone who would propose to close off more land in the process.
Absolutely, restoration can be a good thing if the OHV community doesn't continue to get hosed by the system. My fingers are cramped from being crossed in hope.
VickiW
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 7 2007, 09:02 AM)
Yeah, should have waited until I was more awake.
Here's the first big change I see:
Am I reading this correctly? Will it be open season on our money? It will be paid pack (of course) but with no interest and two years down the line? And how "temporary" is "temporarily transferred?" And how much? All? 15%? Yikes.
Also in section (e) it doesn't have any condition allowing for the continuation of the program. What I mean is, the "new" sunset date is January 1, 2018, unless amended by future legislation, right? But the way this reads, that extra condition isn't included so even if the sunset date is extended, as of January 1, 2018 all remaining money will be transferred to the General Fund.
VickiW
Here's the first big change I see:
QUOTE
(d) Any money temporarily transferred by the Legislature from the
Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund to the General Fund shall be
reimbursed, without interest, by the Legislature within two fiscal
years of the transfer.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date. Any unencumbered funds remaining in the Off-Highway
Vehicle Trust Fund on January 1, 2018, shall be transferred to the
General Fund.
Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund to the General Fund shall be
reimbursed, without interest, by the Legislature within two fiscal
years of the transfer.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date. Any unencumbered funds remaining in the Off-Highway
Vehicle Trust Fund on January 1, 2018, shall be transferred to the
General Fund.
Am I reading this correctly? Will it be open season on our money? It will be paid pack (of course) but with no interest and two years down the line? And how "temporary" is "temporarily transferred?" And how much? All? 15%? Yikes.
Also in section (e) it doesn't have any condition allowing for the continuation of the program. What I mean is, the "new" sunset date is January 1, 2018, unless amended by future legislation, right? But the way this reads, that extra condition isn't included so even if the sunset date is extended, as of January 1, 2018 all remaining money will be transferred to the General Fund.
VickiW
Geeze Vicki, this was already in there from previous legislation, it was just left out by the author. Just a technical amendment. And we want the date to be changed to match up with the new proposed sunset date.
to be able to borrow for up to 2 years, and not pay interest...is not in our best interest.....i don't like that
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 7 2007, 09:08 AM)
QUOTE(AFamilyof4 @ Sep 7 2007, 09:05 AM)
Vicki,
Do you not believe in restoration?
Do you not believe in restoration?
Vicki,
Did you not read my post from yesterday?
QUOTE(SailAway @ Sep 5 2007, 01:34 PM)
The example he gave was perhaps within a state park where illegal riding has taken place. An imaginary valley was created. Let's say there are wonderful, legal trails through this beautiful valley but off to the right the hillside has criss-crosses of illegal trails and debris left behind by those few in our community who do ride illegally.
What a proactive move it would be for some non profit group to obtain a grant to get that hillside replanted and the debris disposed of. Who better to police that land and spruce it up properly than a fellow off-roader, someone who could be trusted to only go as far as absolutely necessary versus someone who would propose to close off more land in the process.
What a proactive move it would be for some non profit group to obtain a grant to get that hillside replanted and the debris disposed of. Who better to police that land and spruce it up properly than a fellow off-roader, someone who could be trusted to only go as far as absolutely necessary versus someone who would propose to close off more land in the process.
Absolutely, restoration can be a good thing if the OHV community doesn't continue to get hosed by the system. My fingers are cramped from being crossed in hope.
VickiW
Sorry, those statements didn't answer my question. Had to ask.
QUOTE(AFamilyof4 @ Sep 7 2007, 09:09 AM)
And we want the date to be changed to match up with the new proposed sunset date.
Of course. But we would also want to protect those funds in case the 2018 date is extended.
VickiW
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.