Overview
Title
To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to provide for the establishment of a Ski Area Fee Retention Account, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1084 wants to create a special money box for collecting rent from ski places on forest land, so the money can be spent on taking care of those ski areas and the forest around them. The money is extra and can't be used for fighting forest fires or buying new land.
Summary AI
H.R. 1084 proposes to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 by creating a Ski Area Fee Retention Account. This account will collect rental charges from ski areas on National Forest System land and use the funds for ski area administration, visitor services, and related forest projects. The bill ensures that local units retain a significant portion of the funds for use in their areas, while also allowing for some funds to be used agency-wide. The collected fees are meant to supplement existing funding rather than replace it, and cannot be used for wildfire suppression or acquiring new land.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled H.R. 1084 aims to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 by creating a "Ski Area Fee Retention Account." This account is designed to collect and manage fees from ski area permits, with the funds primarily supporting National Forest System units that host these ski areas. The bill specifies that 80% of the collected fees will be used locally at the site where they are collected, and 20% will be available for broader use across different units in the National Forest System.
General Summary
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that funds collected from ski area permits are retained and used to improve and maintain ski areas and related facilities. This support includes administrative activities, staff training, wildfire response planning, and enhancing facilities for visitor enjoyment and safety. The bill also emphasizes that these funds should supplement existing appropriations rather than replace them, and it explicitly prohibits the use of these funds for wildfire suppression or land acquisition.
Significant Issues
One notable issue with the bill is the vague definition of "covered unit," which refers generally to the National Forest System. This lack of specificity can lead to confusion or difficulty in managing which units should receive funds. Additionally, the Secretary of Agriculture has significant discretion over fund distribution, potentially leading to favoritism or a lack of transparency.
Another concern is the provision allowing funds to remain available for four fiscal years without further appropriation. While this can offer flexibility, it may also result in inefficient use of resources if funds are not effectively managed.
The bill also outlines a complex funding allocation system, splitting funds into 75% and 25% portions for specific categories of activities. This complexity could complicate administrative processes.
Lastly, there’s potential for conflict in fund usage concerning wildfire concerns. Section 5 focuses on public safety and wildfire planning, but Section 6 prohibits funding for wildfire suppression, which could hinder comprehensive wildfire management strategies.
Broad Public Impact
If implemented effectively, the bill could enhance visitor experiences and safety at ski areas by ensuring that funds are directly reinvested into these facilities. This can lead to improved ski area infrastructure, better managed environments, and potentially increased tourism, contributing positively to local economies.
However, if funds are not managed transparently, or if the allocation does not align with local needs and priorities, there could be inefficiencies or missed opportunities for improvement. Moreover, ensuring funds supplement rather than replace existing appropriations is crucial to avoid undermining fiscal planning.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local Communities and Ski Area Visitors: These stakeholders stand to benefit from improved facilities and services, potentially leading to a boost in local tourism and associated economic benefits.
National Forest Service: The agency may be positively impacted by having additional resources for ski area management but will need to navigate the complexities of fund management and ensure compliance with the bill's intent.
Environmental and Conservation Groups: Concern may arise around ensuring funds are appropriately used for environmentally sustainable practices, especially given the prohibition on using funds for wildfire suppression.
Overall, H.R. 1084 has the potential to provide significant benefits to ski area facilities and their users but must balance these goals with careful and transparent management of resources to avoid pitfalls in fund allocation and usage.
Issues
The definition of 'covered unit' in Section 2 might be too vague as it generally refers to the National Forest System without specifying which units are included, potentially leading to confusion or administrative challenges.
The Secretary of Agriculture is granted significant discretion over the distribution of funds in Section 2, including the ability to reduce the local percentage of funds retained and determining the 'reasonable needs' of covered units. This could lead to favoritism or lack of transparency in fund allocation.
The provision in Section 2 allowing funds to remain available for four fiscal years without further appropriation might lead to inefficient resource management if funds are not properly monitored or are mismanaged.
The differentiation in Section 2 between activities that use 75% of the funds and those that use 25% could create administrative complexity, complicating the financial and operational processes.
A conflict exists between Sections 5 and 6 of Section 2 regarding public safety priorities; Section 6 prohibits use of funds for wildfire suppression despite the general safety focus of Section 5.
The clause on 'supplemental funding' in Section (7)(B) of Section 2 requires that retained rental charges supplement and not supplant appropriated funding, but it lacks a definition for sufficient appropriated funding, leading to potential financial ambiguity or misallocation.
The proposed centralized control and distribution of funds, while requiring local expenditure according to Section 2, raises concerns over fiscal federalism by potentially creating inefficiencies if local needs are not aligned with fund allocation.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states its official name, which is the “Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development Act.”
2. Establishment of ski area fee retention account Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a "Ski Area Fee Retention Account" in the U.S. Treasury, where ski area permit rental charges are deposited. It outlines how these funds should be distributed and used for specific purposes such as maintaining ski areas and improving visitor facilities while prohibiting use for wildfire suppression or land acquisition. The account is designed to supplement existing funding and comes into effect 60 days after the bill's enactment.