Fairbanks Snow Travelers

Landowners can benefit from taking action to conserve their land for trails and other
uses. Granting a conservation easement can reduce a landowner’s property tax. The most
recent issue of the Interior Alaska Land Trust (IALT) newsletter had this snippet:

Read the Interior Trails Quarterly PDF linked to from the from page, or just go to:

http://www.snowtravelers.org/files/itq.pdf

Interior Alaska:

Ester Dome Singletrack Trail – Happy Valley Phase: Funding will be used to construct a five mile, non-motorized, multi-use trail in Happy Valley (Fairbanks). The trail will be built to Forest Service, Class II, mountain bike trail standards. These standards incorporate sustainability requirements for alignment, grade, integrated water control, and durable tread. Alaska Trails was awarded $50,000 for this project.

Wonder if this is snowmachine registration money?

Quite possibly, Alaska Trails is a 501 C non profit group that is suppose to represent "all" trail users, motorized and non-motorized, although their board is made up of pretty hard core non-motorized trail users.

They have been willing to discuss issues with the motorized users, but they are usually pretty set in their ways as far as motorized -v- non-motorized issues.

Snowmachine registration funds disbursement, as set by DNR, gives X amount of their annual grant budget to non-motorized trail work. Not fair, but once again we get it in the shorts. We pay they play.

Hi John,

Let me start this off by saying that I’m a non-motorized trail user who willingly shares the same trails that you folks use.

>> Quite possibly, Alaska Trails is a 501 C non profit group that is suppose to represent "all" trail users, motorized and non-motorized, although their board is made up of pretty hard core non-motorized trail users.

Correct, unfortunately the board is now comprised of primarily non-motorized trail users, but in the past we've had motorized trail users on the board (http://www.alaska-trails.org/about_us/f ... ectors.htm). The concept that you are either “motorized” or “non-motorized” is flawed... especially in Alaska, where many users share recreational activities.

Is anyone at Fairbanks Snow Travelers willing to be on the Alaska Trails board? We want and need to have more board members who are primarily motorized users.

>> They have been willing to discuss issues with the motorized users, but they are usually pretty set in their ways as far as motorized -v- non-motorized issues.

We are always willing to discuss issues, but “motorized –v- non-motorized issues” are not really part of our mission: promoting sustainable trail systems for all users. (http://www.alaska-trails.org/about_us/overview.htm).

In the case of the Ester Dome Singletrack trails, we were invited to help develop the trails. We believe that in some limited cases non-motorized trails are appropriate, but we spend a lot of time and energy on issues that benefit as many users as possible, including motorized users. For example, in recent months we hosted a three day state-wide trails conference in Anchorage, where many sessions focused on OHV topics. In the Interior, Alaska Trails has been involved in informing the public about the legal, economic and tax benefits of recreational trail easements (as mentioned at the start of this thread); assisting the Chena Flats Greenbelt Project with hand tools and technical assistance in a trail re-route; and providing hand tools and assistance in trail maintenance at the Skyline Ridge Park.

>> Snowmachine registration funds disbursement, as set by DNR, gives X amount of their annual grant budget to non-motorized trail work. Not fair, but once again we get it in the shorts. We pay they play.

Actually, there are two competitive grant programs administered by Alaska State Parks: the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and the Snowmobile Trails Program (STP) (http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/aktrails/index.htm). RTP grants are funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration based on a percentage of federal fuel taxes on all vehicles, are multi-season, may be applied toward a variety of non-motorized/motorized projects and activities, and only non-profits and public agencies are eligible. While STP grants are funded through the State of Alaska’s snowmobile registration fees, can be applied only to snowmobile projects and activities, and all organizations, clubs, public agencies, and businesses are eligible.

As a non-profit, Fairbanks Snow Travelers is eligible for either grant program, and I'm sure there are many worthwhile projects here in the Interior.

The Ester Dome Singletrack - Happy valley Trail was partly funded through an RTP grant, not a STP grant. Because of our non-profit status and expertise, Alaska Trails was asked to take the lead and facilitate the project. Alaska Trails is very interested in partnering with other organizations on similar projects ... non-motorized or motorized.

Thanks,

Geoffrey Orth, Board President
Alaska Trails
geoffrey.orth-at-alaska-trails.org

Welcome Geoff to the FST web site,

Appreciate your thoughts and comments as well as the time and involvement you have with Alaska Trails. We are all concerned about trails in general and do appreciate those who are willing to commit their time and energy to the benefit of all trail users.

With that said, Federal Highway Administration RTP is funded (or use to be if memory serves me right) by 1% of 10% of all federal gas tax collected from (the estimated) "Recreational" vehicle's gas usage, rather than "All" vehicles. Of course the amount of $ distributed for rec trails is great, but it is again a motorized tax collected and given to non-motorized trail usage (Please read on before getting upset at that one).

In regards to the DNR STP, here we have a sore subject. FST use to apply for STP grants, until we got burned. As the original STP Chair (served 3 years), one of my main issues with DNR was that they make and keep fund distribution (i.e. grants) structured so that small entities such as FST could apply for and us this resource in a way that didn't require them to take out loans and ask the membership to provide the funds up front until the state reimbursed them. DNR had originally complied with this reasoning of thought and we (FST) did apply for a few grants. Then do to internal issues at DNR we had to borrow $ to pay for the grant until DNR decided to reimburse us, which took over 6 months and cost us $ when personnel in the DNR accounting dept lost our original cost receipts we sent in and then refused to reimburse us. End product, FST lost $4,500.00, had to go to a private source for a loan to complete the project and all this in doing the states work of upgrading and maintaining some trails. So as you can see, this is a touchy issue with us (or at least with me).

We gladly support other entities (and do via letters of support and man power) that have the financial resources to apply for a $15,000.00 to $30,000.00 grant and fund it until the state reimburses them.

One of the biggest issues we have is simply the extra cost that motorized user have to provide. Example is the registration fee we pay every year that the state and others have talk about wanting to raise. They say that the increase would increase the amount of funding for STP, which would be of benefit. However, I "do not" know of any non-motorized use groups that are paying for the benefit of using the trails or adding to the STP funding pool. So it is (unfortunately) a cost that we as motorized user have to burden while the non-motorized user benefit with out any financial burden. This is the main thrust of the issue with motorized -v- non-motorized.

If you look at all the trails in the state, the majority is or has a non-motorized user aspect to them while in many cases prohibit motorized use. Yet it is the funding from motorized user that provide a large amount of the support for these.

If there was a fairer means to account for and divide the cost or the collect of funds between the two then the issues we have wouldn't exist. But as long as motorized recreation users have to pay while the non-motorized recreation users don't, we'll continue to have the issue of M -v- No M.

It is unfortunate, but a reality with no solution visible unless DNR get involves in requiring some sort of trail usage fee to the non-motorized user, comparable to what the motorized users are having to pay.

I hope this helps in understanding the issues we have a bit more and do appreciate any comments and brain storming that might allow us to go forward in a way that we can all benefit.

Geoff,
Welcome to our website. Let me introduce myself, my name is Jody Formon and I am the current president of the club. I have been to a couple of your meetings including the one concerning trail signage. I would be interested in being on the board because I feel that the motorized user needs a voice on this comittee.

"Appreciate your thoughts and comments as well as the time and involvement you have with Alaska Trails. We are all concerned about trails in general and do appreciate those who are willing to commit their time and energy to the benefit of all trail users."

John discussed the clubs main reason for not applying for grants. I have to agree with him that being "burned" as the club was, could possibly destroy the club financially, if it were to happen again. My main concern is that more and more trails are being closed to motorized users. We are expected to pay registration fees and most of us pay road tax on the fuel we use in all our OHV's, yet we are denied the use of the trails we pay for. Not one other user group is expected to do anything else for this privilege.

"If there was a fairer means to account for and divide the cost or the collect of funds between the two then the issues we have wouldn't exist. But as long as motorized recreation users have to pay while the non-motorized recreation users don't, we'll continue to have the issue of M -v- No M."

We brought this to the attention of your board in regards to the new trail signs being developed. They may be fine in places where there is less motorized trail usage but we feel that they will cause nothing but problems here. In order to be honestly fair to all user groups, all sides must be respected, not necessarily the ones with the loudest voice.

Hi John,

Good catch. I was wrong on the source of RTP funds, it is only recreational vehicles.

In principle, I personally agree about non-motorized users not paying their share and riding on the backs of fees paid by the motorized users. There’s been talk about a “user fee” tacked onto the sale of recreational equipment such as bikes, x-c skies, etc. Another option might be an annual “trail pass”, but w/ the patchwork of land ownership in the state, that might not be workable.

The Trails Program Office (State Parks & Outdoor Recreation) has had a change of staff and is good to work with. Also, while both programs are reimbursable in nature, the FHA stipulations do permit funding advances for the RTP grants (which can be up to $50,000). If the grant applicant has the internal resources, these grants can be pretty worthwhile.

Best,

Geoffrey Orth, Board President
Alaska Trails
geoffrey.orth-at-alaska-trails.org

Hi Jody,

I’m wearing couple of hats here. President and board member of Alaska Trails and also a member of the FNSB Trails Advisory Commission (TAC).

Alaska Trails, is a statewide non-profit. Check out our website for more information (www.alaska-trails.org). You’re welcome to sit in on our next board meeting. It will be a teleconference this next Tuesday at 12p. This weekend, I’ll email you the agenda, phone number & passcode. If you’re then interested, email me w/ a short resume and letter of interest that I can pass along to the other board members.

The TAC is the organization that meets the 2nd Tuesday, in the evening at Alaskaland. It is an advisory board for the borough and is the organization that you sat in on. There is a vacancy, and you should contact either Tom Hancock or Mike Cox (FNSB Parks & Recreation, p: 459.1070) if you are interested in joining. The public is always welcome. The FNSB P&R TAC was the recipient of the RTP grant for the development and production of the trail etiquette signs. This did go through a public scoping process and FTC was involved from the first draft in 2006.

Best,

Geoffrey Orth, Board President
Alaska Trails
geoffrey.orth-at-alaska-trails.org

Geoff,

You wear them both (hats) well. I have to say tha in our joint meetings I was appreciative of your concerns in how any actions taken affected and involved motorized users, especially snowmachiners. Although you are a non-motorized trail user, you foresight was positively noted.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there has been talk, rumors mostly at this point, about raising the snowmachine registration fee. It was support by DNR and (unfortunately) other snowmachine entities in South Central AK and strongly opposed by FST. I am sure that this issue will raise its ugly head again, but if we could collaborate and devise some sort of fee base that would take some of the burden off of the snowmachining community, a majority of the concerns we have would disappear.

We're not asking to be freed of the burden of paying to help maintain and keep our trails, we just don't want to always be the sole provider of those fees.

We do have a diverse ownership in our trails system, but we should be able to come up with some sort of basis for helping to provide financial sources to maintain them. Maybe if DNR and the borough did have a trail user fee for non-motorized user, say a pass of sorts and then funding for maintenance and such was provided only to those trails that required a pass for legal use.

Not the best solution, but one that might work. I know that other trail systems do this and its seems to work well and provide for a much large funding base in keeping their trails maintained and groomed.

Just a thought.

Excellent and enlightening discussion about trails funding. Eric Troyer here, publisher of the Interior Trails Quarterly and editor of the Alaska Trails newsletter. Geoff told me about this conversation. I am also a nonmotorized user who believes strongly that most trails should be multi-use. However, like Geoff, I thought the Recreational Trails Program funds came from gas taxes for all motorized vehicles, including my car. I agree it's unfair that motorized trail users should bear the sole burden of providing federal funding when some of those funds must go to non-motorized use trails.

I know in the past there have been discussions about taxes on recreational equipment that would help pay for parks and trails, however, I don't know of anyone actively advocating for that now. Too bad. It would help spread out the cost among all trail users. I believe that a portion of the Mat-Su bed taxes go toward trails. I assume the argument is that the Mat-Su Trails bring in a lot of tourists. That might work up here.

I checked out the American Trails website for funding ideas. Below are some of the ones I found. (I included the sales tax one even though I seriously doubt it would fly up here).

Anyway, this is all just food for thought. I don't have the time right now to actively push for another form of trail funding, but when I can I will advocate for spreading out the cost. Sorry you guys have to bear so much of the burden.

Eric Troyer


From American Trails website (Funding and Resources: http://www.AmericanTrails.org/resources ... nding.html ):

• Sales taxes are successful where tourism and concerns about quality of life issues are prevalent.
• Excise taxes on bicycles or outdoor equipment can work in some places. The Colorado Springs bicycle excise tax, $4.00 per every new bicycle sold, raises over $60,000 a year for bike lanes and bike trails.
• Bond issues take a lot of work but can bring big dollars to trails. Better if campaign is combined with parks and recreation rather than just trails.
• "Change for the Better" Program. Local merchant donates 25 cents into jar on counter for every sale he makes, and asks customers to match it. Pikes Peak Area Trails Coalition raises around $1,000 each month of this program, from only one small outdoor equipment store.
• Voluntary/Temporary Tax. Similar to Change for the Better Program, except it is run by many retailers. Customers are asked to donate 25 cents, or some other amount, or their loose change after every sale for a specific purpose. When enough money is collected to fund the trail, the "tax" is lifted.

FWIW. off-highway light trucks also contribute to the fund and that class includes SUVs, F-150, F-250, etc. So by driving a F-250, an Explorer, and my son's Grand Cherokee, I'm contributing!

Geoff

=======================================

Subject: RE: Source of RTP Funding
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:33:06 -0400
From: <Christopher.Douwes@dot.gov>
To: <geoffrey.orth@alaska-trails.org>
References: <4AD4FB4A.1070703@alaska-trails.org>

Good morning Mr Orth.

As noted on our Recreational Trails Program (RTP) website,
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/: The RTP funds come from the
Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel
excise tax collected from nonhighway recreational fuel use: fuel used
for off-highway recreation by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles,
off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks.

I'll provide a tediously boring explanation about how the funding
proportions came about and how they operate.

The legislation authorizing the RTP,
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/legislation.htm, specifies how
States may use the funds. In terms of the minimum shares for diverse
use, motorized use, and nonmotorized use, that is specified in 23 U.S.C.
206(d)(3), see
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rec ... on.htm#use. The
provision specifying percentages for diverse, motorized, and
nonmotorized use has been in effect since the beginning of the original
National Recreational Trails Fund Act in 1991 (which was part of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991). A primary
reason cited for this provision is that the motorized recreation
interests realized they never would have gotten any legislation enacted
unless the nonmotorized recreation interests would have seen a reason to
support the program. The 40-30-30 formula came about as a result of a
lot of discussion and compromise among many trail interests, with
significant opposition from several national advocacy organizations that
opposed having any program that would allow funding any motorized use.

Of the funds apportioned to each State, each State must use the funds as
specified in the law. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance
on this provision is here:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rec ... 1.htm#rtp7. The FHWA
does not "allocate" the funds: the funds are apportioned to the States
by statutory formula, and the States must choose projects in a manner to
comply with the provisions specified in the law. The FHWA does not
"justify" the formula; the FHWA implements the law as the Congress
enacted it.

Until 2005, there was a provision that a State Trail Advisory Committee
could waive the motorized (or nonmotorized) requirement if there were
not enough eligible projects to meet the requirement. Some States had
100% nonmotorized programs (I heard one was changing its eligibility
criteria every time a motorized project appeared to be eligible). For
that reason FHWA advocated a provision to eliminate this waiver and the
national trail interest organizations realized that if States shut out
the motorized users, then the program was not fair for those who were
funding it. The provision to eliminate the waiver was enacted in 2005.

Many States have 70% nonmotorized / 30% motorized programs. There has
been talk about adjusting the formula to be more "fair" for the
motorized users who are paying for the program; several motorized
organizations have suggested ideas. But when they come together, the
national trail organizations are not willing to "rock the boat" by
advocating a new formula. As a result, no formal proposals have been
drafted. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any change would be accepted
by Congress.

I hope this rather tedious explanation answers your questions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Orth -- Alaska Trails
[mailto:geoffrey.orth@alaska-trails.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:12 PM
To: Douwes, Christopher (FHWA)
Subject: Source of RTP Funding

Hi Christopher,

By way of an introduction, I am with Alaska Trails, a state-wide
non-profit and your name was given to me our former board president,
Jack Mosby.

I am involved in an online discussion regarding the source and
allocation of funds for the Recreational Trail Program
(http://www.snowtravelers.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3899). I was under
the assumption that funds were derived from a fuel tax on highway
vehicles, but it seems that the primary source is estimated OHV usage.
If that is correct, how can FHA justify allocating 30% to non-motorized
projects/activities?

Thanks for your help,

Geoff

Thanks Geoff,

A nice explanation helps everyone, of course it also means I'm contributing more than I thought I was

I hope etroyer has time in the not to distance future to look at additional fund sources from within the state, especially for the STP funding.

Geoff wrote:FWIW. off-highway light trucks also contribute to the fund and that class includes SUVs, F-150, F-250, etc. So by driving a F-250, an Explorer, and my son's Grand Cherokee, I'm contributing!

That's good to know that light trucks also contibute, as an off roader I often ride my Jeep Wrangler through trails that are marked for all motorized use. My group of off roaders stay out of the light trails (1500 pound and less) and non motorized trails. I would hate to be seen as a moocher, riding for free on trails that are paid by others, even if only 30% of what I contribute actually go to foster the motorized trails that I use. At least here in AK we still have places to ride off road, I can't say the same about places out east...

This is my first post here, and I really enjoyed reading through the discussion on the funding of trail building and maintenance. I've been prowling the net for information on trails in and around Fairbanks and found this website, a treasure trove! Thanks to the Snowtravelers for putting this website together.

sanmusa

Welcome and glad to have you here. Be glad to help answer any questions you might have. We've got a pretty good pool of knowledge within the ranks and that helps everyone.

I have a question. Since I've never seen a recreational use fuel pump or anyone at a gas station take notice of what type of vehicle is being filled up, how is the amount of the federal fuel tax allocated to recreational use determined.
I have an off road truck that burns 100% recreational fuel and I would like it to be counted.