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
The bill wants to make a special piggy bank using money from ski resorts in forests to help make the ski areas nicer and safer, but it can't use that money to buy more land or fight big fires.
Summary AI
The bill S. 472 aims to modify 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 area permits on National Forest System lands. The funds in this account can be used by the Secretary of Agriculture for various purposes, such as improving ski area facilities, staff training, wildfire response planning, and more, to enhance visitor experience and safety. The bill ensures that these funds would not replace other government funding but would supplement them and cannot be used for land acquisition or wildfire suppression.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The proposed bill, titled the “Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development Act,” seeks to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. Its primary objective is to establish a “Ski Area Fee Retention Account” within the U.S. Treasury. The account will serve as a repository for ski area permit rental charges, aiming to better manage and distribute these funds. Specifically, the legislation outlines how the retained funds should be utilized, such as maintaining ski areas and enhancing visitor facilities. The account is designed to supplement existing funding for ski areas and will become effective 60 days after the bill's enactment.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from the bill:
Ambiguity in Definitions: The term "covered unit" is vaguely defined, potentially leading to confusion. It generally refers to units of the National Forest System, but lacks clarity on which specific units are included under this designation.
Discretionary Power: The Secretary of Agriculture is given considerable discretion in fund distribution. This includes the power to alter the percentage of funds retained for local use, which may result in favoritism or lack of transparency.
Complexity in Fund Allocation: The bill's structure for dividing activities into categories for funding could result in bureaucratic inefficiencies. Dependence on defined percentages (75% for some activities and 25% for others) may overly complicate administrative processes.
Potential for Inefficient Resource Use: The provision for funds to remain available for four fiscal years without further appropriation increases the risk of resource mismanagement if not adequately monitored.
Conflict in Prohibited Fund Uses: There is a conflict as the bill prohibits the use of funds for wildfire suppression and land acquisition despite the general emphasis on public safety. This restriction might negatively impact firefighting efforts.
Financial Ambiguity: The clause that funds must "supplement (and not supplant)" appropriated funding lacks clarity. It could lead to financial ambiguity regarding what constitutes adequate funding levels.
Impact on the Public
Broadly speaking, the bill aims to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of funds collected from ski area permits, potentially improving facilities and experiences for visitors of national forest ski areas. By focusing resources on visitor services and safety improvements, the bill might contribute to better maintained and more appealing recreational spaces.
However, an increase in centralized control could potentially misalign with local priorities or needs, leading to inefficiencies. For instance, if funds are not used where needed most, or are delayed due to administrative complexities, the anticipated positive impact may be reduced.
Impact on Stakeholders
For ski area operators and visitors, the bill promises benefits by potentially providing additional resources for maintaining and improving ski areas. These stakeholders might experience enhanced facilities and services, improving their overall experience.
Local governments and communities near these ski areas could benefit from increased tourism and economic activity if the improvements attract more visitors. However, they may also face challenges if the allocation of funds is not in line with local needs or if there are delays in the utilization of these funds.
On the legislative and administrative side, the significant discretion afforded to the Secretary of Agriculture could lead to potential issues of favorability or lack of accountability. There needs to be mechanisms to ensure fairness and transparency in the use of retained funds to address these potential pitfalls.
In summary, while the bill has the potential to bring improvements to ski areas within the National Forest System, careful attention to its implementation and oversight will be essential to ensure that the intended benefits are realized effectively and efficiently.
Issues
The vague definition of the term 'covered unit' within Section 2 can lead to ambiguity regarding which specific units of the National Forest System are included, potentially creating confusion and inconsistency in the application of the bill.
The significant discretion given to the Secretary of Agriculture in the distribution of funds, especially with the ability to reduce the local percentage to 60% or determine the reasonable needs of the covered unit, could result in favoritism or lack of transparency in Section 2.
The provision allowing funds to remain available for four fiscal years without further appropriation in Section 2 might lead to inefficient use of resources if not properly monitored or managed.
The prohibition on using funds for wildfire suppression and land acquisition in Section 6 conflicts with the general public safety priority outlined in Section 5 and could hinder firefighting and land acquisition efforts crucial for public safety.
There might be an overcomplexity in the differentiation between activities that use 75% of the funds and those that use 25% as outlined in Section 2, potentially complicating administrative processes and leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies.
The clause concerning 'supplemental funding' in Section (7)(B) requires retained rental charges to 'supplement (and not supplant)' appropriated funding without clear definition, leading to potential financial ambiguity or misallocation.
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.