Please comment on these regs before FEB 28Th

[tomjeeps2]

Please comment on these regs before FEB 28Th, here is my basic overview please contact me off line with any questions, Thanks..Tom

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1164

ohvinfo@parks.ca.gov jpelonio@parks.ca.gov




Funding caps need to be augmented by a baseline system, rather than just a one size fits all cap established projects should be limited to 10% a year increase. This may stop grant padding, IE adding 25% because they figure their only going to get 70% of what they ask for. The old Waldheim Budget speared sheet, would very much come in handy for this task.

In the 2003/2004 grant cycle, Division gave us a one to two page summery, of how they came up with their recommendation, now all we get from them is an apparently derogatory number (score) with no explanation. Now we are supposed to except this number as their "determination" and "factual" finding, with virtually no disclosure what so ever, if they want to give us a number fine, at least give us a summery of how they came up with it. At least then Division is demonstrating they actually read the grants, I don't expect perfection just minimal accountability for what they came up with.

Can't find Any linkage in the regs as to how the publics concerns are being addressed, this is during what was the open house process, now they don't even have those. Now they just post them on the Internet, theres a thirty day comment period but what happens with the comments? Do the applicants address them or do they just put them in an attachment, and just leave it for later on. Seams as it gets more complicated the publics roll is always the first to go, again if we don't have a functioning Commission it's all just a waste, whatever happens needs to be bought into the open.

More clarity as to when grants are on or off consent, more accountability as to how the consent calendar is developed, no more "Y*" or "Y**" crap!!!
We should all know for sure tens days in advance, what will and will not be on the consent calendar, anyone should be able to pull anything off for any reason. However within reason meaning thirty days written notice, also it should be public record who pulled anything off, be it the public, a Commissioner, an applicant or even a division Staff member or State official.

Again an appeals process for applicants, such as binding arbitration for both completion status and score, the year before 45 grants got deemed incomplete, then it got reduced to 39, this year they didn't even release a number. Also it was stated on record at the last meeting that some applicants where not happy, so I do believe it is a problem that should be addressed in the regs. I know this is complicated so I hope this helps, please feel free to call with any questions...Tom (949) 439-6566

[tomjeeps2]

I never did like having the Commission "Targets" especially serving as "cut offs", we should score the grant first, with the funding issue totally disregarded then the Commission should adjust the funding buckets last as needed. This is after all grants are Farly scored and public input, along with Division and Commission involvement, we can make the best choice where the money should go. Or just strike this part all together, I really don't see any reason to have this in the regs.

The only reason they started this is so the Agency's would have some idea, what this out of control Commission was funding each year, what it has turned into is the Commission leading the Agency's around by the nose.

With the release of the new fuel tax study we need to get rid of this, let the Agency submit their grant by legitimate needs, score the grants correctly then we all deal with the funding buckets last. If you only Comment on one thing this year Comment on this, I think Brew would agree this should just be lined out all together...TJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGS

2.7 Ranking and Funding of Projects

Projects within the individual funding categories will be ranked based on the score received. Projects will be
fully funded in order of score, from highest score to lowest until the "cutoff point" is reached. The general funding targets established by the Commission, or the Division with direction from the Commission, will serve as "cutoff points" for an individual funding category. Once the funding cutoff is reached, Projects with scores falling below the funding cutoff will not be funded. In the event that multiple Projects have the same score at the cutoff line, the Projects at the cutoff line will be funded in the order of request amount, starting with the smallest request amount. If more than one (1) Project has the same request amount, the Division will utilize a "random selection" method to break ties and determine which Projects will receive funding.

[tomjeeps2]

Written comments that are not more than 10 pages will be accepted by the
Division via facsimile at (916) 324-1610. A fax transmission must be completed
by the deadline given.
Written comments may also be delivered electronically to John Pelonio Grant
Administrator, at: 916-324-4442 or jpelonio@parks.ca.gov, or Barbara
Greenwood, Grant Administrator, at 916-324-4442 or
bgreenwood@parks.ca.gov.


Note:
All comments received during the first comment period and public
hearings, including those not included in the revisions, as well as comments
received during this 15-day comment period, will be included in the Final
Statement of Reasons with the Department’s responses. The Final Statement of
Reasons will be made available on the Division website at the time of the
submission of the Permanent Regulations to the Office of Administrative Law.

[tomjeeps2]

Funding caps need to be augmented by a baseline system, rather than just a one size fits all cap established projects should be limited to 10% a year increase. This may stop grant padding, IE adding 25% because they figure their only going to get 70% of what they ask for. The old Waldheim Budget speared sheet, would very much come in handy for this task.
Just use the existing formula for the C&E funds, drop the buckets all together and we just spend the minimum on C&E. With the mew numbers we just comply with the LAW, it's really not a Commission or Division issue, the Agency's just apply for what they need and don't worry about it.

Caps are determined by staying within a percentage of past awards, also less than 16 Million actually got allocated with over 2 Million left under Restoration, Agency's have made due with this for decades. Again going back to the baseline system, Waldheim budget or whatever you want to call it, ether way there is just no need for targets to be written into the REGS.

In the 2003/2004 grant cycle, Division gave us a one to two page summery, of how they came up with their recommendation, now all we get from them is an apparently derogatory number (score) with no explanation. Now we are supposed to except this number as their "determination" and "factual" finding, with virtually no disclosure what so ever, if they want to give us a number fine, at least give us a summery of how they came up with it. At least then Division is demonstrating they actually read the grants, I don't expect perfection just minimal accountability for what they came up with.

Can't find Any linkage in the regs as to how the publics concerns are being addressed, this is during what was the open house process, now they don't even have those. Now they just post them on the Internet, theres a thirty day comment period but what happens with the comments? Do the applicants address them or do they just put them in an attachment, and just leave it for later on. Seams as it gets more complicated the publics roll is always the first to go, again if we don't have a functioning Commission it's all just a waste, whatever happens needs to be bought into the open.

More clarity as to when grants are on or off consent, more accountability as to how the consent calendar is developed, no more "Y*" or "Y**" crap!!! We should all know for sure tens days in advance, what will and will not be on the consent calendar, anyone should be able to pull anything off for any reason. However within reason meaning thirty days written notice, also it should be public record who pulled anything off, be it the public, a Commissioner, an applicant or even a division Staff member or State official.

Again an appeals process for applicants, such as binding arbitration for both completion status and score, the year before 45 grants got deemed incomplete, then it got reduced to 39, this year they didn't even release a number. Also it was stated on record at the last meeting that some applicants where not happy, so I do believe it is a problem that should be addressed in the regs.

NO TARGETS IN THE REGS!!!
The only reason they started this is so the Agency's would have some idea, what this out of control Commission was funding each year, what it has turned into is the Commission leading the Agency's around by the nose. With the release of the new fuel tax study we need to get rid of this, let the Agency submit their grant by legitimate needs, score the grants correctly then we all deal with the funding buckets last. If you only Comment on one thing this year Comment on this...

I never did like having the Commission "Targets" especially serving as "cut offs", we should score the grant first, with the funding issue totally disregarded then the Commission should adjust the funding buckets last as needed. This is after all grants are Farly scored and public input, along with Division and Commission involvement, we can make the best choice where the money should go. Or just strike this part all together, I really don't see any reason to have this in the regs.


REGS

2.7 Ranking and Funding of Projects

Projects within the individual funding categories will be ranked based on the score received. Projects will be fully funded in order of score, from highest score to lowest until the "cutoff point" is reached. The general funding targets established by the Commission, or the Division with direction from the Commission, will serve as "cutoff points" for an individual funding category. Once the funding cutoff is reached, Projects with scores falling below the funding cutoff will not be funded. In the event that multiple Projects have the same score at the cutoff line, the Projects at the cutoff line will be funded in the order of request amount, starting with the smallest request amount. If more than one (1) Project has the same request amount, the Division will utilize a "random selection" method to break ties and determine which Projects will receive funding.

I know this is complicated so I hope this helps, please feel free to call with any questions...Tom (949) 439-6566

[Brewster]

Hey Tom, I wonder if you and I are the only ones that have taken the time to read and submit comments about the proposed OHV Grant program changes?

Do you know where the March 23-24 OHMVR Commission meeting will be held? In Sac. again or S. Cal? I can't find anything about it in the transcriptions of the last meeting......darn, I can't even find the transcriptions of the last meeting......

Ride on
Brewster

[tomjeeps2]

Hey Tom, I wonder if you and I are the only ones that have taken the time to read and submit comments about the proposed OHV Grant program changes?

What I wounder is who the hell understands it, the March meetings are in Sacramento last I heard...TJ

[Jerry Seaver]

The ASA has sent their comments in thru it's attorney.

[tomjeeps2]

Thank you for emailing and sharing your views.

California was built by the ingenuity and hard work of people who had
the courage to put pen to paper and ideas into action. Our great State
continues to thrive because of the involvement and commitment of its
people.

As your Governor, I greatly appreciate receiving input from my
constituents. Taking the time to communicate your opinions and offer
suggestion is essential to good government. Your concern shows that
California's people are engaged in the issues that affect the well-being of our
State.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

This thank you letter appears to actually be from the Governor himself, not just an auto generated response, ether way it sums it up pretty good. It's my views, I don't have to be an attorney to make them known, shame on anyone who tells you not to share your views and in My case this includes the Deputy Director.


Daphne Coffin Greene, shame on you perhaps it's your input we could do without...JT

[crash]

This thank you letter appears to actually be from the Governor himself, not just an auto generated response, ether way it sums it up pretty good....JT

REALLLLLLY!?!?

Tell me. Can you come up with ANY subject that could POSSIBLY be in a letter that this reponse WOULD NOT be suitable for?

This is auto generated BS at it's planest. I think you HAD to have known that and were just fishing to see if anyone was reading this stuff.

Don't take this the wrong way. I for one, REALLY appreciate you keeping us up to date on the REAL issues that may be "behind the scenes" for most of us.

Thanks.

[tomjeeps2]

I really don't know for sure, it's different than what they sent out before, perhaps it's new it is pretty genaric, well did anybody eles ever get one of these??? Anyway like I siad it don't matter, the message is share your views, SO folks share your views right or wrong, shame on those who tell you not to..TJ