Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

This letter is to request that the Department of Finance look into the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Community’s concerns that OHV Trust Funds may be overextended, and the spending definition of what is OHV related stretched too far. Over the years the OHV Community was uninvolved in the State Parks Department ‘s use of OHV Trust Funds for operational expense, and on many capitol outlay items, and this may have been a big mistake on our part.

The amount of OHV Trust Funds for support of the Parks Department has grown from 12.2 million dollars, to a proposed 37.8 million, in just five years, a 210% increase. During the Wilson administration the increase over eight years was only about 20%. I request to be informed of details of all the expenses included in the 37.8 million dollars of OHV Trust funds proposed for use by Parks Department for operational support.

The proposed budget includes positions to immediately staff an OHV Park in Riverside, with toxic waste cleanup issues and other significant concerns. This proposed OHV Park will not likely be open within the next three years, if ever. Still even these staff increases alone do come close to explaining the steep OHV Trust Funds spending increases, so contracting expenses need also to be looked at carefully.

The OHV program is conducting a study of it’s main revenue source, gas tax revenues. It unsound to raise spending greatly when future revenues are uncertain. Also, the OHV program itself is set to legislatively sunset on January 1st, 2007. On top that, the OHV Trust Fund reserves have been wiped out due to recent unusually high spending levels.

Please investigate this matter in detail, and please give pause to these huge Parks Department support budget increases from the OHV Trust Fund. It is important that the Public OHV Community can again be confident that our tax dollars, and OHV Trust Funds, are really only for what they were intended for in a truly frugal manner. Please contact me for further information and I very much appreciate your help.



Yours truly,

This was a from letter started by Kim Kammer in 2004, one of many that helped trigger the OHMVR audit, now that it's all siad and done I must ask:

Did the OHMVR Audit achieve it's goals?

When you move forward from 2004 to 2008, yes, the audit achieved its goal of change to the OHMVR program.

SB 742 was passed with a near clear bipartisan majority supporting the legislation.

The opposition was from radicals on both sides of the aisle:

Republicans objected to the "tax increase" --- OHV wanted and got an increase in the "green sticker" fee; yes, it was a "tax" increase. However, the people PAYING the tax wanted the increase.

Democrats objected to a significantly reduced "restoration" fund. And, they had to fund studies out fo the "restoration" fund. And, they had to fund environmental documentation out of the "restoration" fund.

In short, the state OHMVR program is very healthy because the audit helped draw attention to a problem.

And, reasonable people from the recreation and environmental community spent a significant amount of time to craft a program the provided safeguards for the environment and ensured continued recreation opportunity.

Those of us that have attended all of the OHMVR Commission meetings for the past 7 plus years realize the impact of SB 742. Is it "perfect"? Well, it doesn't "walk on water" and it has been attacked by those not part of crafting a solution. So, it must be a reasonable thing.

Thanks John you input is always welcome on these matters, however I think Division should be reasoning to this formally, the Commission I believe was overdue for a response and the last meeting got canceled. Some major points have as of yet to be addressed, such as the overall overhead of Division, and the overspending on SVRA's which offer little bang for the buck compared to the grants program.

I'm no lawyer so correct be if I'm wrong, does SB742 do anything to change this balance, to me it's confusing but I always said overall more should go to grants...TJ

Three members of the commission resigned. There is no quorum; hence, a meeting to discuss "business" cannot be conducted.

A time-line for addressing the rants has been laid out and is being fallowed.

The funding for SVRAs and the grants program are clearly identified. The entire OHMVR Trust Fund is directed to OHMVR within the SB 742 framework.

Keep in mind that funding changes occur with the new fiscal year; not in mid-fiscal year. The funding changes directed by SB 742 take effect 1 July.

John, I fail to see how SB742 has in some way relieved the program as a whole of it's responsibility's, the same goes for a lack of a quorum. As far as Addressing "rants" who determines there "rants" and when to address them? In a business if it's not done you don't get paid, it don't matter who's fault it is, they have enough equipment at Carnegie alone to maintain half the Forest in the State. Bottom line is the Commission as we knew it is gone, it's time we all stop being "sock puppets" for Division and ask from hard questions...

Taken respectfully I hope...TJ

A new commission is being formed and a pbulic meeting date has been set.

SB742 is the authority for operations of the state OHMVR program.

As it is a government agency, you have the opportunity to voice your opinion in formal letter to the head of the agency. And, various public forums are set to receive public comment.

No one said SB 742 relieved anyone of responsibilities. Perhaps if you can read it and cite a passage where that occurs, your statement may have some credibility.

SB 742 defines the responsibilities for management of the OHMVR Program and is the legal authority for the existence of the program.

If you have a question about OHMVR management issues, it needs to be framed as to how it violates the law - SB 742. And, there are numerous other laws within the state that have bearing.

Stick to specific issues.

So what are you recommending I do contact B.S.A., the issue is getting trails maintained I really don't want to do that, what I was hoping would happen is Division just got what they already owned in the field. We don't need to apply for any more grants for tractors, there's more than enough out there we all ready paid for, they just all worth an average of two weeks a year I bet...TJ