Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
Proposed legislation would establish a recreation pass that would cover State Park, DNR and Department of Fish and Wildlife recreation lands. Users would be subject to $10/car day pass or a $30 annual pass.
More than 2000 petition signatures later, a new bill - Senate Bill 5622 - that incorporates our major concerns is working its way through the convoluted process of becoming a law. Sponsored by Senators Ranker, Swecker, Fraser, Hargrove, White and Regala, SB 5622 sets up the Discover Pass, which is a three-agency - State Parks, DNR and Fish and Wildlife - vehicle access pass.
The legislation is markedly different from the draft bill circulated by DNR and Fish and Wildlife earlier in the session in that the pass is per vehicle rather than per person. In addition, it would also include State Parks.
As such, it's much more like the Northwest Forest Pass and is much more easily supported by people who hike, mountain bike, ride horses and use ORVs on these lands. While WTA would prefer that the legislature pay for recreation from the general fund, since it's a core public value, we recognize that the state is grappling with a $4.6 billion deficit this year. In order to keep our parks and recreation lands open, WTA believe we must step up and support reasonable solutions like this one.
Here are the particulars of the legislation:
- A day pass would cost $10 per vehicle.
- An annual pass would cost $30, and could bepurchased when you renew your vehicle license tabs. It would not be transferable between cars.
- Of the funds collected, 85% would go to State Parks and 7.5% would go to both DNR and Fish and Wildlife.
- The pass is expected to raise $71 million per biennium.
If the Discover Pass raises the revenue that economists and the legislature project, those percentages will be sufficient to keep important recreation sites statewide open.
One of WTA's chief concerns with the initial proposal circulated by the agencies was a per person pass. This would have made enforcement extremely difficult and costly, which would have significantly eaten into revenue. Now, enforcing the pass will be as easy as a quick drive through the trailhead parking lot.
The introduction of this new bill is a good first step, but it is by no means a done deal. WTA needs YOU to attend Hiker Lobby Day next Wednesday, February 9th, in Olympia. You will have the opportunity to meet with your elected officials and express the importance of keeping our state recreation lands open. Please sign up by 8am on Thursday, February 3rd, so that we can make appointments for you.
Can't make Lobby Day? We encourage you to take a moment and call your legislators, particularly your Senator, and urge them to support this legislation. This is one of the best ways you can help keep places like Mount Si, Squak Mountain State Park, and Umtanum Canyon open and maintained. Thank you!
Comments
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
Posted by:
geologirl on Feb 01, 2011 04:43 PM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
I am curious as where the Day Passes will be made available for purchase as the ease of obtaining them will be very important for the support of the more random users of the State's public lands.
I live in Senator Ranker's district and I will be attending Lobby Day. Hopefully, I will get the opportunity to express my personnal thanks for his efforts and discuss the bill.
Posted by:
Marty; Have saw, will travel. on Feb 01, 2011 07:01 PM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
Posted by:
Pete on Feb 08, 2011 09:07 AM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
Geezerhiker
Posted by:
geezerhiker on Feb 08, 2011 09:27 AM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
Also the estimate of funds raised not pass a squint test. There are only 6 million people in Washington. Does anyone really think that 1 in 6 is going to buy one of these passes each year. Also the dollar amount raised is not very large. A couple million a year will get sucked up in just administration, printing, enforcement and distributing the pass.
If the state is going to transition to user fees they should start with the ferry system which is subsidized at an 80% level. This is where the real money is being spent.
Sorry for the rant. This is wrong on almost all levels and I am really sick of govt nuisance fees. I can't understand why WTA would advocate this kind of legislation. This is not the time for a victory dance.
Posted by:
Tacoman on Feb 08, 2011 10:17 AM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
Fees are OK / useful when the activity that the fee is charged for is discouraged. Here's my suggestion to fund trails and state parks (and the viaduct & 520 bridge replacement): Increase the gas tax by 30 cents / gallon. A few years ago gas was $2.00 / gallon. Now it's $3.30. Gas was as high as $4.00 not too long ago and people still drove almost as much as before.
Please, no more regressive fees. Have the courage to raise taxes. Wait, no, that doesn't work either in Washington. Voters are too stupid.
Posted by:
Uli on Feb 08, 2011 06:21 PM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
I hear your frustrations. I share them. This issue is frustrating. WTA has been fighting continually on behalf of hikers for general fund appropriations to keeps state parks and DNR lands open for the past three years. Each year, the budget situation gets worse, and the prospects of obtaining general fund dollars for these lands gets more and more slim. This year, in 2011, that prospect was off the table.
I don't "like the idea" of fees. We're facing reality here, because if we don't, these lands will close. That's our choice. Find a new source of funding for now (a fee structure) or these lands close. We've known this for months. That's why we've engaged hikers and our members in this discussion as openly and honestly as we could -- here on this blog, on our Facebook page, and at our events -- to get a sense for what hikers were willing to do. Pay a fee or not? If so, how much? We listened. When the fee proposal from DNR was unreasonable, we responded quickly, and were successful in getting fee proposal legislation we could live with, and that many hikers told us they could live with.
Our public lands deserve sustainable and stable funding. We believe that recreation is a core public resource, and that these state recreation lands - from state parks to DNR lands - should be supported by appropriated general fund dollars in times of state prosperity. These are not times of state prosperity.
It's frustrating to keep track of another access pass, and hard to part with those dollars. Maybe you will choose not to purchase the Discover Pass. At least if this legislation passes, though, these state lands will stay open so you'll have that choice to make.
Posted by:
Jonathan Guzzo on Feb 11, 2011 02:47 PM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
DNR is not going to stop access to these lands. If you were told this please don't believe it. This would cost more than reducing trailhead and trail maintainance by 6%. If they do restrict access it is just retribution, not economically justified. DNR is looking for a excuse to expand the size of its department. That is how state agencies create for work for themselves and how individuals get promotions. I have been there and I have seen it.
Posted by:
Tacoman on Feb 11, 2011 05:35 PM
Multi-Agency User Fee Bill is Now Official
I should be able to buy one pass and put it on the dash of the vehicle I'm using similar to the NW forest pass or the National Parks pass is used.
Posted by:
traildoggie on Feb 15, 2011 10:47 AM
discover pass
Posted by:
Princess on Mar 03, 2011 08:05 AM
It is just another tax
My wife, kids, and I enjoy riding Dirt Bikes and ATVs. I am required to buy ORV tabs each year for all of my “ORV” vehicles in my garage. I am already paying more than my share of fees to fund lands that I am mostly not allowed to ride on and it wouldn’t be fair to add another fee on top of my ORV tabs. Also, I have a question regarding this “$30.00 per vehicle fee”. Is that going to be applied to my truck, trailer, and each motorcycle and ATV that I am hauling? You say "Of course not that wouldn't be reasonable." I read HB 1796 from top to bottom and it sounded to me like I will be paying a new fee FOR EACH VEHICLE on top of the ORV tabs that I already have. Even if I am only paying a new fee for just my truck, it still isn't reasonable to expect us to pay this much money for very limited ORV recreation. What especially makes me feel outraged is that the money that I pay for ORV tabs and now the money for this new fee probably won’t even get spent on the lands that are open for ORV use.
Posted by:
"Douglas Reed" on Mar 14, 2011 09:08 PM