This is what the text of the budget debate on the Senate side yesterday to raid our OHV Fund of $ 90 million.
This puts into legal terms how much they are going to take from us and when it is alleged to be returned. The money will be gone for four years.
________
SEC. 17. Item 3790-011-0263 is added to Section 2.00 of
the Budget Act of 2008, to read:
3790-011-0263--For transfer by the
Controller, upon order of the Director of
Finance, from the Off-Highway Vehicle
Trust Fund to the General Fund............. (90,000,000)
Provisions:
1. The amount transferred in this
item is a loan to the General
Fund. The repayment shall be
made so as to ensure that the
programs supported by the Off-
Highway Vehicle Trust Fund are
not adversely affected by the
loan, but no later than June
30, 2013.
Other than CORVA, no other major OHV org took a position on this proposal and did they "mobilized" their membership to contact the legislative folks. I guess they took a holiday on this issue and now we have no money for projects to be funded like Wash road.
Full Version: Text Of The Budget - $ 90 Million Raid Of Ohv Fund
QUOTE
The repayment shall be
made so as to ensure that the
programs supported by the Off-
Highway Vehicle Trust Fund are
not adversely affected by the
loan, but no later than June
30, 2013.
made so as to ensure that the
programs supported by the Off-
Highway Vehicle Trust Fund are
not adversely affected by the
loan, but no later than June
30, 2013.
QUOTE
In an attempt to add some transparency to this topic:
The reference to the Conservation and Enforcement ("C&E") account is for $21 million and some change, is those monies transferred to the OHV Trust Fund in the 07 budget year as a result of SB 742 that closed out the C&E fund because our negotiators got sucked into making restoration a permanent responsibility of the Trust Fund instead of the C&E; which would have been phased out naturally since the new study (gasoline use) showed that there were very few unregistered OHV any more.
In the past, that is how the C&E account was funded.
The second item which is right below that is the $90 million loan from 0263 OHV Trust to 0001 general fund as a result of new legislation that will be a trailer bill amending the 08-09 budget
The reference to the Conservation and Enforcement ("C&E") account is for $21 million and some change, is those monies transferred to the OHV Trust Fund in the 07 budget year as a result of SB 742 that closed out the C&E fund because our negotiators got sucked into making restoration a permanent responsibility of the Trust Fund instead of the C&E; which would have been phased out naturally since the new study (gasoline use) showed that there were very few unregistered OHV any more.
In the past, that is how the C&E account was funded.
The second item which is right below that is the $90 million loan from 0263 OHV Trust to 0001 general fund as a result of new legislation that will be a trailer bill amending the 08-09 budget
QUOTE
What I believe DUCK is saying is the people that should be representing the OHV public, somehow agreed to have our fund spend with many legal mandates, to do everything but one thing, provide opportunity. Because of this any "Borrowing" will ultimately come out of operations regardless of what it's called, because I assume now having an operational program is the only thing not mandated by Law, well DUCK did I get that right???...TJ
So far no response, but to say with no adverse effect is the biggest whopper of a lie ever, hell they could just as well take it all and put the program out of it's misery...TJ
QUOTE
Gov takes our 90 mil trust, But not hunting, fishing licenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the OHV community always to friggen pay?
Not falting other outdoor recreation , But dam it, We pay
for some of the opportunity to get these guys to
their hunting sites and fishing holes.
State will not borrow from hunting, fishing licenses
ShareThis
By MATT WEISER
mweiser@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Feb. 23, 2009 - 11:44 am
The final state budget approved by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Saturday did not include a controversial plan to borrow $30 million in wildlife funds from the Department of Fish and Game.
The proposed loan was controversial among sportsmen and wildlife advocates because it involved transferring $30 million generated by hunting and fishing license fees. That money is intended to be used for wildlife enhancement projects, not the state general fund. It also caught the attention of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which warned the state that it could lose another $30 million in federal matching funds if the loan took place.
State officials maintained that because the proposed revenue shift was a loan, and because it was predicted not to have any immediate impact on wildlife programs, it would not violate rules governing federal matching funds.
But in the final hour, said state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer, the $30 million shift simply didn't make the final menu of fiscal options in the budget.
"Just as the original mix of revenues that we had put forward weren't part of the package, so too was this not included," he said.
__________________
2004 450R Quad for sale
PM me for details!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the OHV community always to friggen pay?
Not falting other outdoor recreation , But dam it, We pay
for some of the opportunity to get these guys to
their hunting sites and fishing holes.
State will not borrow from hunting, fishing licenses
ShareThis
By MATT WEISER
mweiser@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Feb. 23, 2009 - 11:44 am
The final state budget approved by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Saturday did not include a controversial plan to borrow $30 million in wildlife funds from the Department of Fish and Game.
The proposed loan was controversial among sportsmen and wildlife advocates because it involved transferring $30 million generated by hunting and fishing license fees. That money is intended to be used for wildlife enhancement projects, not the state general fund. It also caught the attention of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which warned the state that it could lose another $30 million in federal matching funds if the loan took place.
State officials maintained that because the proposed revenue shift was a loan, and because it was predicted not to have any immediate impact on wildlife programs, it would not violate rules governing federal matching funds.
But in the final hour, said state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer, the $30 million shift simply didn't make the final menu of fiscal options in the budget.
"Just as the original mix of revenues that we had put forward weren't part of the package, so too was this not included," he said.
__________________
2004 450R Quad for sale
PM me for details!
To all ORG's other than CORVA maybe BRC, THANKS FOR NOTHING...TJ
QUOTE
1. The amount transferred in this
item is a loan to the General
Fund. The repayment shall be
made so as to ensure that the
programs supported by the Off-
Highway Vehicle Trust Fund are
not adversely affected by the
loan, but no later than June
30, 2013.
item is a loan to the General
Fund. The repayment shall be
made so as to ensure that the
programs supported by the Off-
Highway Vehicle Trust Fund are
not adversely affected by the
loan, but no later than June
30, 2013.
Wayne I hate to put CORVA on the spot with this but, I think an emergency Court action is in order to block the transfer, at least make them explain their logic as to how this wont adversely effect our program...TJ
QUOTE (TomJeeps @ Mar 2 2009, 10:10 AM) 
QUOTE
1. The amount transferred in this
item is a loan to the General
Fund. The repayment shall be
made so as to ensure that the
programs supported by the Off-
Highway Vehicle Trust Fund are
not adversely affected by the
loan, but no later than June
30, 2013.
item is a loan to the General
Fund. The repayment shall be
made so as to ensure that the
programs supported by the Off-
Highway Vehicle Trust Fund are
not adversely affected by the
loan, but no later than June
30, 2013.
Wayne I hate to put CORVA on the spot with this but, I think an emergency Court action is in order to block the transfer, at least make them explain their logic as to how this wont adversely effect our program...TJ
Wayne is nothing more than a member of CORVA. Just like you and I.
Perhaps you need to direct this to the CORVA Board of Directors and the other OHV groups such as CA4WDC, ORBA, AMA and their Districts, ASA, SDORC, etc.
They have the financial horsepower.
QUOTE
Perhaps you need to direct this to the CORVA Board of Directors and the other OHV groups such as CA4WDC, ORBA, AMA and their Districts, ASA, SDORC, etc.
OK I thought this was directed at CORVA including the BOD, just doing it here because I have not seen any BOD email activity for some time now, yes as far as the other Orgs yes please do Finlay come to the party...TJ
Posted by "Doc" Holliday on the ASA website today at 11:07 AM...
_______________________________________________________________________________
The fund loan will not affect the normal OHV grant program. This money that has been taken as a loan is money that is set aside for OHV land purchases and as there are no pending OHV land purchases this money is not required for the normal operation of the OHV program.
This is not to say anyone is happy about this loan but it does not affect the current operation of the SVRA’s or the pending grant applications.
We must be vigilant in seeing that this money is repaid and that we work with State Parks to utilize this money to purchase land for recreational opportunities.
Legal action on this issue is not warranted or cost effective at this time.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The fund loan will not affect the normal OHV grant program. This money that has been taken as a loan is money that is set aside for OHV land purchases and as there are no pending OHV land purchases this money is not required for the normal operation of the OHV program.
This is not to say anyone is happy about this loan but it does not affect the current operation of the SVRA’s or the pending grant applications.
We must be vigilant in seeing that this money is repaid and that we work with State Parks to utilize this money to purchase land for recreational opportunities.
Legal action on this issue is not warranted or cost effective at this time.
QUOTE (Washroad @ Mar 2 2009, 02:44 PM)
Posted by "Doc" Holliday on the ASA website today at 11:07 AM...
_______________________________________________________________________________
The fund loan will not affect the normal OHV grant program. This money that has been taken as a loan is money that is set aside for OHV land purchases and as there are no pending OHV land purchases this money is not required for the normal operation of the OHV program.
This is not to say anyone is happy about this loan but it does not affect the current operation of the SVRA’s or the pending grant applications.
We must be vigilant in seeing that this money is repaid and that we work with State Parks to utilize this money to purchase land for recreational opportunities.
Legal action on this issue is not warranted or cost effective at this time.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The fund loan will not affect the normal OHV grant program. This money that has been taken as a loan is money that is set aside for OHV land purchases and as there are no pending OHV land purchases this money is not required for the normal operation of the OHV program.
This is not to say anyone is happy about this loan but it does not affect the current operation of the SVRA’s or the pending grant applications.
We must be vigilant in seeing that this money is repaid and that we work with State Parks to utilize this money to purchase land for recreational opportunities.
Legal action on this issue is not warranted or cost effective at this time.
This is directed to the post by Mr. Holliday and not Washroad
Where do you get your information here?
We have not done a land purchase for a State SVRA in more years than I can remember and I don't see any on the planning stages.
I see no account holding $ 90 million in the OHV Fund.
SB 742 doubled our fees for registration. The mantra then was we were out of money for grants, including O&M.
No grants to BLM, Forest Service, and the like occured last year.
Even with this doubling of or fees and no expenditure in grants last year, I don't see this kind of funds available on the books for acquisition.
I know that Tom has called the Division (Ms. Greene and Mr. Jenkins) more than a few times for an accounting of where we are at on monies and where this $ 90 million is coming from. There has been no response to date from the same.
But the bottom line here is that Mr. Holliday's group never mobilzed its membership against the raid of our fund. They must still be waiting for their lobbyist to give them instructions.
I just sent a e-mail to Mr. Jenkins of the Division asking for information on this.
I await his (the Division's) response.
I'll report what was provided if and when this response received.
I await his (the Division's) response.
I'll report what was provided if and when this response received.
remember those pics bansh posted awhile back??
signs that said: "this trail has been closed. paid for by ca green sticker funds"
maybe we should let em have all the green sticker money, and no more trails will be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
signs that said: "this trail has been closed. paid for by ca green sticker funds"
maybe we should let em have all the green sticker money, and no more trails will be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (rivermobster @ Mar 2 2009, 03:53 PM)
remember those pics bansh posted awhile back??
signs that said: "this trail has been closed. paid for by ca green sticker funds"
maybe we should let em have all the green sticker money, and no more trails will be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
signs that said: "this trail has been closed. paid for by ca green sticker funds"
maybe we should let em have all the green sticker money, and no more trails will be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not a bad idea here Joe. Good one!
QUOTE (APHANTOMDUCK @ Mar 2 2009, 03:57 PM)
QUOTE (rivermobster @ Mar 2 2009, 03:53 PM)
remember those pics bansh posted awhile back??
signs that said: "this trail has been closed. paid for by ca green sticker funds"
maybe we should let em have all the green sticker money, and no more trails will be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
signs that said: "this trail has been closed. paid for by ca green sticker funds"
maybe we should let em have all the green sticker money, and no more trails will be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not a bad idea here Joe. Good one!
Yeah, freakin sucks big time.
Are grants the only way we can get our hands on that money??
Why does it seem it's never used for what WE want it used for???
Well... if the money was in the Fund and Wash Road issue needed fixing and the trash issue (at the dunes) could be addressed with a grant (even an emergency one) and we indeed had the money (like the $ 90 million) to accomplish these needs, it is all now for naught.
Our fund has been raided by the legislature.
CORVA did its best to mobilize the membership. Others did nothing.
But I guess the lobbyist and the CHP got paid this month.
Our fund has been raided by the legislature.
CORVA did its best to mobilize the membership. Others did nothing.
But I guess the lobbyist and the CHP got paid this month.
The Division responded to my e-mail today and will be putting something together on this issue and get back to me on Wednesday.
Hopefully this response will answer the burning question...
Hopefully this response will answer the burning question...
Better than the "we still haven't heard anything" I got last week, well if Division was not involved, and I still can't find a stakeholder that will say they were then the obvious question is... WHO WAS...TJ
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.