*Attempt to steal CA OHV Grant Funds*

[cj7sswampers]

While state parks would be a good thing to spend it on, it shouldn't come out of that fund.

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by cj7sswampers

While state parks would be a good thing to spend it on, it shouldn't come out of that fund.

Hmmm, let's see. Fuel tax is part of transportation. The high speed rail project is some sort of transportation. Why not cancel the high speed rail project like a majority of CA citizen want to do and use some of the saved money for the parks?

Ride on
Brewster

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Mustard Dog

Examples

Please allow me to PM you as to not cause this topic to get further off course.

[Bebe]

So here is the State OHMVR Program Report

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/f...0final-web.pdf

Here is what they show (2008-2009) numbers as the most recent:

INCOME



That is a lot of light blue ink...

EXPENDITURES




It is noteworthy that the OHV community supported SB 742 which doubled the cost of OHV
registration from $25 to $50 every two years. In 2009, as a result of specific sections of the CVC
which raise the amount of money to be collected for CHP based on increases in the Consumer
Price Index, the CHP portion of registration fees was increased from $6 to $8, raising the total
registration cost to its current level of $52.

The funds allocated to the Division by the Governor and Legislature are used to achieve the legislatively
established goals for the OHMVR Program. In FY 2009/10, OHV Trust Funds allocated to
Annual Distribution of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Registration Fees
(Registrations Are $52.00 Biennially, Effective January 1, 2009)

California State Parks, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission
the Division totaled slightly over $91 million, and were used to support OHMVR program activities
at the following levels:

■■ Grants Program (appx. 31%)
■■ Operation of the SVRAs (appx.*28%)
■■ Division operations (appx.*17%)
■■ Pro-rata support of state administrative agencies and administrative overhead costs to
California State Parks (appx. 14%)
■■ Capital outlay (appx. 10%)

The funding for Division operations provides for centralized program activities performed to support
both the Grants Program and the SVRAs, as well as other necessary functions related to
implementation of the OHMVR Program statewide.

[Brewster2]

I've mentioned submitting a request for fuel taxes paid but not used on the state highway system. Here's the section of the state Revenue and Tax code that covers the idea;

Revenue and Tax Code, sections 8101-8152.

8101. The following persons who have paid a tax for motor vehicle fuel, either directly or to the vendor from whom it was purchased, or indirectly by the adding of the amount of the tax to the price of the fuel, shall, except as otherwise provided in this part, be reimbursed and repaid the amount of the tax:
(a) Any person who buys and uses the motor vehicle fuel for purposes other than operating motor vehicles upon the public highways of the state, except vehicles subject to identification under Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000) of the Vehicle Code, which are used for recreational purposes or are rented or leased for recreational purposes, and, on and after July 1, 1974, except motor vehicles subject to registration under Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000) of the Vehicle Code while engaged in off-highway recreational use.

The sections of the vehicle code are for Off-Road vehicle use, therefore demonstrating that a specific use has been determined for that portion of the fuel tax. If the money is not being used for its stated purpose, it should be refundable.

Ride on
Brewster

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

Senate Committee meeting

I just finished watching/listening to yesterdays archived meeting. Even the LAO seemed unsure of the legality of moving OHV funds for use by state parks.

What was not brought up is the reason that the fuel taxes are transfered to the OHV fund. The fuel tax paid at the pumps is constitutionally directed for highway use. If the fuel (gas only) purchased at the pumps is used off highway, the fuel tax can be refunded by the state. Farmers, motorized equipment (generators, chain saws, power equipment, etc.) users can apply for a refund of the fuel tax.
With that in mind, fuel used in vehicles (street legal and OHVs) off highway on public lands, still pay the fuel tax. Instead of allowing these users to apply for a refund of the fuel tax, a portion of the total state fuel tax gets moved into the OHV fund.

Ride on
Brewster

Great post Brew.

You are right on the mark.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

Correct. The $21M is what is left of the OHV grant funding money. Last year, the Gov's budget reduced the Grant funding by $5M.


Looking at the state budget numbers, $3M per year.


The percentages can be adjusted at any time by the legislature. The current numbers were put into place with SB742.

Ride on
Brewster

So if that is the case, have them take the money from "Restoration", the State Parks need "Restoration" don't they?

Let them have the whole dang budget for Restoration since according to the Annual Program Report, the "Restorations" are Complete

Originally Posted by Brewster2

Hmmm, let's see. Fuel tax is part of transportation. The high speed rail project is some sort of transportation. Why not cancel the high speed rail project like a majority of CA citizen want to do and use some of the saved money for the parks?

Ride on
Brewster

Brilliant - and true.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

I've mentioned submitting a request for fuel taxes paid but not used on the state highway system. Here's the section of the state Revenue and Tax code that covers the idea;

Revenue and Tax Code, sections 8101-8152.

8101. The following persons who have paid a tax for motor vehicle fuel, either directly or to the vendor from whom it was purchased, or indirectly by the adding of the amount of the tax to the price of the fuel, shall, except as otherwise provided in this part, be reimbursed and repaid the amount of the tax:
(a) Any person who buys and uses the motor vehicle fuel for purposes other than operating motor vehicles upon the public highways of the state, except vehicles subject to identification under Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000) of the Vehicle Code, which are used for recreational purposes or are rented or leased for recreational purposes, and, on and after July 1, 1974, except motor vehicles subject to registration under Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000) of the Vehicle Code while engaged in off-highway recreational use.

The sections of the vehicle code are for Off-Road vehicle use, therefore demonstrating that a specific use has been determined for that portion of the fuel tax. If the money is not being used for its stated purpose, it should be refundable.

Ride on
Brewster

I can amend my return

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

Hmmm, let's see. Fuel tax is part of transportation. The high speed rail project is some sort of transportation. Why not cancel the high speed rail project like a majority of CA citizen want to do and use some of the saved money for the parks?

Ride on
Brewster

I like it, but how many union jobs would that generate, probably not much traction there?

I busted a gut yesterday when the witness for the Government Scientist union made his pitch to the committee to tag on provision requiring Government Scientists to be used instead of contract scientists.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by randii

Please,

C'mon, anyone who starts a discussion by telling us how many years they have in, or starts slamming on another person for how few... well, they undermine their own credibility. Good arguments and accomplishments speak for themselves and don't have to call back on history to support themselves.
Steve, I agree with you and other members of 'the old guard' on many things, and I'll say the same thing that I've said to a few other OHV leaders -- you think well and do good work, focus on THAT instead of blasting the opposition.

Randii: What really got to me was Jeff's personal attack and inability to discuss the facts/opinions I expressed in my previous post.

Instead of praising you, respecting you, and looking to you and others to foster the next generation of leaders, we look to you as a bitter washed up angry arm chair quarterback, who does little more than run things down.

You are frankly a dis-service to the name you have chosen to use on the web, and have tainted it along with yourself.

Thus, my response to him. I considered them as fighting words.

I never attacked him personally and everything I spoke of was the truth. There is nothing wrong with not having the background and perspective on these issues. That is the role of the "old guard" to help educate and guide the new folks who are attempting to do good for the cause.

I had a long talk today with someone we (including Jeff) know. I was given insight to where Jeff is coming from and now have better idea of why his posts are the way they are.

Now, back to the topic.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Bebe

It is noteworthy that the OHV community supported SB 742 which doubled the cost of OHV registration from $25 to $50 every two years. In 2009, as a result of specific sections of the CVC which raise the amount of money to be collected for CHP based on increases in the Consumer Price Index, the CHP portion of registration fees was increased from $6 to $8, raising the total
registration cost to its current level of $52.

For those who like to do research, one might want to find out who represented the California Association of Highway Patrolmen as their lobby firm when the SB 742 process moved through the legislature.

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

For those who like to do research, one might want to find out who represented the CHP as a lobby firm when the SB 742 process moved through the legislature.

I don't recall that CHP funding was part of SB742. This last $2 per vehicle registration is for ALL registered motor vehicles and kicked in automatically due to some formula. OHVs sort of lucked out in that we only register every other year.

Ride on
Brewster

[Jeff Knoll]

I apologize to the group for misdirecting the conversation with the personal attack. I thought we took our gloves off.

[LYIN' KING]

It's all good Jeff, you have the passion required to win the war and that is what came out inadvertently!!!

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

I don't recall that CHP funding was part of SB742. This last $2 per vehicle registration is for ALL registered motor vehicles and kicked in automatically due to some formula. OHVs sort of lucked out in that we only register every other year.

Ride on
Brewster

You might be correct, but I seem to recall somewhere on GD.com us discussing the CHP association pushing for more from the OHV Fund.

I recall (but my memory is not clear) that some discussion from this community about the CHP and I'm thinking its was in an early version of the bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary of the bill reminds me of some isssue's raised about CHP funding from the increase of the two year fee.

Nonetheless, I guess I never really understood why CHP would get such a hunk of cash for Off-Highway vehicles when their primary duty is on California's highways. Law enforcement, by in large for the places we operate our OHV's, is controlled by the land management agency's and the county sheriff.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

I've mentioned submitting a request for fuel taxes paid but not used on the state highway system. Here's the section of the state Revenue and Tax code that covers the idea;

Revenue and Tax Code, sections 8101-8152.

8101. The following persons who have paid a tax for motor vehicle fuel, either directly or to the vendor from whom it was purchased, or indirectly by the adding of the amount of the tax to the price of the fuel, shall, except as otherwise provided in this part, be reimbursed and repaid the amount of the tax:
(a) Any person who buys and uses the motor vehicle fuel for purposes other than operating motor vehicles upon the public highways of the state, except vehicles subject to identification under Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000) of the Vehicle Code, which are used for recreational purposes or are rented or leased for recreational purposes, and, on and after July 1, 1974, except motor vehicles subject to registration under Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000) of the Vehicle Code while engaged in off-highway recreational use.

The sections of the vehicle code are for Off-Road vehicle use, therefore demonstrating that a specific use has been determined for that portion of the fuel tax. If the money is not being used for its stated purpose, it should be refundable.

Ride on
Brewster

I've not read this until just now.

Great work Brew.

This goes right along with an email I received some months ago from a trusted person in our community:

Section 8101 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is the section that allows for refunds to be paid to purchasers of motor fuels that are not used upon a highway.
The section was amended in 1972 and again in 1973, both times by Assemblyman Eugene Chappie bills AB151 in 1972 took gas tax used in OHV registered vehicles and deposited them in the OHV Fund and simultaneously prohibited users with OHV registered vehicles from getting their refund

AB 1661 in 1973 added fuel consumed in OHV recreation in street legal vehicles to the amount contributed to the OHV Fund and again it prohibited users from seeking a refund.

The language from 1973 is still the language in the law today:

The bold [and underlined] print is the language added in 1972 and the bold [and underlained] text was added in 1973. It is quite clear that either the money goes to the OHV Fund or it must be subject to refund to the users who paid but no longer receive the benefit of the user fee. A copy of Deerings Codes will have all the background of these bills and show the historical references.

REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE
SECTION 8101-8109


8101. The following persons who have paid a tax for motor vehicle
fuel, either directly or to the vendor from whom it was purchased, or
indirectly by the adding of the amount of the tax to the price of
the fuel, shall, except as otherwise provided in this part, be
reimbursed and repaid the amount of the tax:
(a) Any person who buys and uses the motor vehicle fuel for
purposes other than operating motor vehicles upon the public highways
of the state, except vehicles subject to identification under
Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000) of the Vehicle Code,
which are used for recreational purposes or are rented or leased for
recreational purposes, and, on and after July 1, 1974, except motor
vehicles subject to registration under Division 3 (commencing with
Section 4000) of the Vehicle Code while engaged in off-highway
recreational use.

This gives folks an idea of what I knew to be the case all along.

Thanks for doing the research and providing the same to us.

[Brewster2]

Duck, thanks for the background timelines. I'll try to put it together on an email to the senate committee members that had their meeting yesterday. I doubt that the state LAO or who ever will bring this up for them.
It's information like this on the forums that help to bring all of the pieces of the puzzle together and hopefully make a difference.

Ride on
Brewster

[The Wolf]

What I don't understand is why the environmental groups would want to get rid of the grant funds. 25% goes to restoration of land that has been damaged by ohvs - do they actually believe that getting rid of the grant funds will stop people from riding? No. Do they think the blm and forests have the extra funds to restore these damaged lands? No. There will be much more damaged if there is no managed recreation in the forests and blm lands. there wll be no funds going to law enforcement. Do they think that enforcing ohv laws will be the priority of the various law enforcement agencies that receive grant funds? All the law enforcement agencies statewide rely heavily on grant funds in order for them to enforcement the OHV laws. it make no sense - they are cutting their nose to spite their face....

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

What I don't understand is why the environmental groups would want to get rid of the grant funds. 25% goes to restoration of land that has been damaged by ohvs - do they actually believe that getting rid of the grant funds will stop people from riding? No. Do they think the blm and forests have the extra funds to restore these damaged lands? No. There will be much more damaged if there is no managed recreation in the forests and blm lands. there wll be no funds going to law enforcement. Do they think that enforcing ohv laws will be the priority of the various law enforcement agencies that receive grant funds? All the law enforcement agencies statewide rely heavily on grant funds in order for them to enforcement the OHV laws. it make no sense - they are cutting their nose to spite their face....

They don't give a shit about the environment, frogs or law enforcement, they hate humans.
And the only restoration they are satisfied with is gates.

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

What I don't understand is why the environmental groups would want to get rid of the grant funds. 25% goes to restoration of land that has been damaged by ohvs - do they actually believe that getting rid of the grant funds will stop people from riding? No. Do they think the blm and forests have the extra funds to restore these damaged lands? No. There will be much more damaged if there is no managed recreation in the forests and blm lands. there wll be no funds going to law enforcement. Do they think that enforcing ohv laws will be the priority of the various law enforcement agencies that receive grant funds? All the law enforcement agencies statewide rely heavily on grant funds in order for them to enforcement the OHV laws. it make no sense - they are cutting their nose to spite their face....

No it's most likely never going to be THE DEAL with environmental groups, with SB 742 they all agreed to the money split then two years later their out arguing why more money needs to go to Parks. As far as what they want I believe it's infinite planet sustainability a good goal but just what is that, well a UN report stated the Earth can only sustain 10% of the current population which I assume is their goal, now just how do they intend to do that?

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

Duck, thanks for the background timelines. I'll try to put it together on an email to the senate committee members that had their meeting yesterday. I doubt that the state LAO or who ever will bring this up for them.
It's information like this on the forums that help to bring all of the pieces of the puzzle together and hopefully make a difference.

Ride on
Brewster

I included this back a few pages, it may be of some value regarding timelines.

CA OHV History – Evolution, Bills, Grants, Legislation etc.
http://nohvcclibrary.forestry.uga.ed...LES/M-0031.pdf

[atvobsession]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

This goes right along with an email I received some months ago from a trusted person in our community:

This is exactly the crap that divides this whole group, that is pretending to be fighting for one thing. Clandestine, back room, double agent secret agent orange crap..."a trusted person"...like they're freaking talking about nuclear fission...gimme a freaking break.....that, and the "taking of gloves off" posts?? This group needs to grow the freak up.

I don't know who you are....and based on content...your last 5 or 6 posts, fell to the bottom of relevance.

All this hiding behind user names is BS. Say who you are, say what you mean...NICELY and your credibility rises measurably.

I give a nice to all users in this Land Use forum with the balls to post who they are, who they represent, what they know, how they think it can be fix/won/defeated and do it professionally. Everyone else...

Seems like every battle....a new worm rolls in, preaching about their imaginary accomplishments, work with imaginary people, their imaginary victories, and their imaginary "I told you so, X years ago".

All you imaginary people...could easily be Rich, Monte or Karen just trying to

Someone give me a hand to climb down...lol

[atvobsession]

I want real discussions, with real people. This ain't chit chat.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

I included this back a few pages, it may be of some value regarding timelines.

CA OHV History – Evolution, Bills, Grants, Legislation etc.
http://nohvcclibrary.forestry.uga.ed...LES/M-0031.pdf

Thanks for finding this document. I remember it rather well when it was distributed at one of the Commission meetings.

I think that if someone were to pick selected sentences and quotes from this document and make it a part of a one page flyer (referencing the actual document) it would be good for the issue we face.

Something like this can be used when we send our letters.

The same could be used by those who visit the capitol and a lobbyist.

The best part of the entire document is at the very end and demonstrates that the effort currently being undertaken by the hiring of a law firm has its roots grounded in sound precident.

[atvobsession]

I track all my gasoline purchases. So I took a 12 month period from today to 1 year previous.

ATV - 17 gallons
RZR - 56 gallons
Honda - 202 gallons
Duramax -386

11.1% is OHV only, 30.6 is car and 58.3 % is driving to and from OHV, as my truck is 90% OHV towing only. I realize, that's on paved roads to get there...probably 95% is paved...5% on OHV roads to "get there". So technically, a portion of my truck use, is on OHV roads.

I don't know what the cut is for Green sticker from the gas tax pool...but for me personally, it should be 11.1%.